You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 27, 2020

New Regulation on Advisory Council Mechanism for Settlement of IP Appeals in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

Appeals in the IP field are very common in Vietnam, but it can take a long time to for these cases to be resolved, and the number of appeals pending at the moment is rather high. One of the reasons for this is the lack of human resources allocated to resolving appeals.

The Law on Complaints offers a helpful mechanism to streamline the appeal process, enabling the appeal settlement agency to set up a special Advisory Council to assist in settling appeals at the second stage. Point 22.8 of Circular No. 16/2016/TT-BKHCN, which guides the implementation of the Law on Intellectual Property and took effect on January 15, 2018 (“Circular 16”), additionally lays out the specific framework for IP appeals, providing that the appeal settlement body, depending on the complexity of the case, can seek the opinions of independent consultants or an Advisory Council.

To provide more details on this matter, on February 12, 2020, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”) issued Decision No. 362/QD-SHTT promulgating the Regulation on Advisory Activities in Appeal Settlements in Industrial Property Matters (the “Regulation”). The new Regulation goes into greater detail on the definitions, functions, qualifications, sources, operating principles, and other matters relating to Advisory Councils and independent consultants as introduced under Point 22.8 of Circular 16. We provide a summary of the Regulation below.

Summary of the Regulation

Scope and Definitions

The Regulation applies to all relevant units and individuals within the IP Office.

An “Advisory Council” is a council established by the Director General of the IP Office to advise the Director General on legal and technical issues and solutions in the course of settlement of appeals of one or more specific matters. Its members include independent consultants (as defined below) or individuals with other appropriate expertise.

“Independent consultants” are persons with suitable expertise who are selected from the list of industrial property consultants approved by the Director General of the IP Office as well as from other sources (if there are no suitable experts on the list).

Subject to the content and nature of the appeal, the Director General of the IP Office will decide to set up an Advisory Council or to consult an independent consultant.

Advisory Content

The Advisory Council or an independent consultant can advise on legal and technical issues and their solutions relating to the following:

  1. The right to file applications for the registration of industrial property rights;
  2. The registrability of industrial property objects;
  3. The scope of protection of industrial property rights;
  4. Methods of identifying acts of bad faith and unfair competition related to industrial property rights;
  5. Assessment of the nature of evidence provided by the claimant and its appropriateness to the arguments; and
  6. Other contents as decided by the Director General.

Organization of the Advisory Council

An Advisory Council is established per the decision of the Director General of the IP Office, and consists of five to seven members, depending on the contents and nature of the respective appeal. An Advisory Council includes a chairman, vice chairman, and other members who are consultants. A staff member of the IP Office’s Enforcement and Appeal Division will serve as the administrative secretary of the Advisory Council.

The responsibilities of the Advisory Council members are as follows:

  • The chairman shall determine the meeting timelines of the Advisory Council; chair and manage the operations of the Advisory Council; assign tasks to the members of the Advisory Council; sign the minutes and other related documents of the Advisory Council; take general responsibility for proposing the plans for the appeal settlement; request the IP Office to hold direct discussions with the claimant, the defendant, and persons with related rights and interests; conduct on-site surveys for appeals with complicated details and multi-claimant appeals in accordance with the law, where necessary; etc.
  • The vice chairman shall perform the tasks and powers of the chairman if the chairman is absent, and report to the chairman the outcome of the meetings; assist the chairman in directing and implementing the tasks of the Advisory Council during the meetings; check on and urge the Advisory Council members to implement their work per the assignment of the chairman; perform the tasks and powers of a member of the Advisory Council; etc.
  • The other members shall fully participate in the meetings and activities of the Advisory Council when summoned; have the right to propose, discuss and vote on matters within the responsibilities of the Advisory Council; be responsible for and be entitled to reserve their own opinions; etc.

Independent consultants are obligated to give their opinions on the appeal matters honestly, subjectively, and fairly, in accordance with the laws and practices of Vietnam.

An effective way to resolve IP appeals?

It is worth noting that according to the Law on Complaints, only second-stage complaints/appeals can be resolved through an Advisory Council. However, according to the Regulation, the IP Office can also set up and seek advice from the Advisory Council and independent consultants for first-stage appeals at the IP Office. This is expected to result in reasonable, sensible decisions, while shortening the appeal examination period. However, it is not indicated in the Regulation whether the Advisory Council and independent consultants will be involved in second-stage appeals at the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Nevertheless, the Regulation brings much hope for Vietnam’s IP practitioners and IP owners that their appeals will be resolved efficiently in the near future.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More