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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More