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

April 5, 2020

An Overview of Utility Solutions in Vietnam

Under Vietnam’s intellectual property law, patent protection is available for both inventions and utility solutions. Both must meet novelty and industrial applicability criteria to qualify for protection, but utility solutions, unlike inventions, do not need to prove an inventive step. They must simply be “not ordinary knowledge.” As the patentability criteria are less stringent, the term of protection for a utility solution is not as long as for an invention.

What is called a utility solution patent in Vietnam goes by different names in other countries, such as utility model (the original term in the Paris Convention), innovation patent, petty patent, or utility certificate. The regulations may also differ from country to country. In seeking patent protection by means of utility solution in Vietnam, applicants should consider the following points.

1. Overall

While some countries restrict protection by utility solution to certain types of technical solutions, there is no such restriction in Vietnam. Accordingly, any fields—chemical processes, for instance—that are eligible for invention patents are also eligible for utility solution patents.

In turn, it is not unusual in Vietnam to file an application for utility solution claiming priority to an invention application, and vice versa, under the Paris Convention. Also, a PCT application can enter the national phase in Vietnam as a utility solution application.

Because of the similarity of utility solutions and inventions, there is no overlap between utility solutions and designs. Further, it is not possible to file a design application in Vietnam claiming priority to a utility patent application.

During prosecution, a patent application for invention may be converted into a patent application for utility solution, and vice versa, either as a voluntary conversion or response to an office action (normally objecting to the inventive step of the application).

2. Application and Timelines

The application documents for utility solutions, including the patent specification, are the same as those for inventions. The application will be examined as to formalities, published, and substantively examined. There is no alternative for the procedure.

The fees are also the same. Therefore, the filing of a utility solution application is not a measure to seek patent protection with a lower fee.

The most significant differences between utility solutions and inventions are that (1) a request for examination of a utility solution must be lodged within 36 months from the priority date, compared to 42 months for invention, and (2) the protection period for utility solutions is only 10 years from the filing date, compared to 20 years for inventions.

Because of the short protection term and the fact that, under the regulations, the time period for issuing examination results for utility solutions is 18 months (the same as for inventions), public comments have been raised for Vietnam to consider changing the system from an examination system to a no-examination system. However, there have been no signals showing that the system will be changed. Instead, the patent office tends to handle utility solution applications sooner, so that the patents would be granted sooner.

One technique applicants can use to shorten prosecution time is to file a request for early publication. In general, a non-PCT utility solution application will be published in the 19th month from the priority date, and substantive examination will only start when the application is published; therefore, such request is advisable.

3. Substantive Examination

For a utility solution application to be patented, it must satisfy three requirements: (1) novelty, (2) industrial applicability, and (3) not being ordinary knowledge. (As previously mentioned, an inventive step is not required.)

While the novelty requirement is clear (absolute novelty, worldwide), the requirement of not being ordinary knowledge is not clarified in the legal documents. The Vietnam Guidelines for patent examination provide only an example of a solution that would be considered ordinary knowledge: “The subject-matter claimed is a method of protecting a steel structure by covering the surface of the structure with anti-rust paint.” Though this requirement is inherently subjective, the implication is that the solution must be “unusual” to some degree, and not something that can be easily observed.

The Vietnamese examiners often consult foreign examination results for corresponding applications when examining Vietnamese applications. However, many countries do not substantively examine utility solutions, so the consultation is limited. Therefore, if the applicant obtains a patent granted on a corresponding application in a country where utility solutions are substantively examined, the applicant should provide the information on the patent to the Vietnamese patent office to accelerate the examination in Vietnam.

4. Situation in Vietnam

Vietnam’s capacity for technological innovation, while improving, is not yet strong, with many small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in “mature” industries like agriculture and food processing, where the pace of innovation is relatively low.

This can be seen in the main fields for patent applications filed by Vietnamese applicants (fields with more than 70 applications filed in 2018), which are, according to the International Patent Classification (Source: IP Office of Vietnam):

  • A01: Agriculture; forestry; animal husbandry; hunting; trapping; fishing
  • A23: Foods or foodstuffs; their treatment, not covered by other classes
  • A61: Medical or veterinary science; hygiene
  • C12: Biochemistry; beer; spirits; wine; vinegar; microbiology; enzymology; mutation or genetic engineering
  • E02: Hydraulic engineering; foundations; soil-shifting.

In these fields, protection of utility solutions is often appropriate. Meanwhile, companies in high-tech areas like information technology and electronics—a higher percentage of which are foreign companies—are more likely to seek invention patents.

The statistics in the table below clearly reflect this—while foreign applicants file the vast majority of all invention applications, domestic applicants file almost two-thirds of all utility solution applications. (It should be noted, however, that Vietnamese invention applications are increasing at a greater rate than foreign applications.)

Patent Applications Filed in Vietnam in 2018 (Source: IP Office of Vietnam)

Summary

In sum, due to the many similarities to inventions, including the fees, utility solutions in Vietnam should only considered as a measure to seek patent protection for technical solutions not meeting the inventive step requirement. In all other respects, invention patents provide an equivalent or better option.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted