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

Subscribe to Updates

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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More