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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation