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

June 24, 2026

Patent Enablement Considerations for Pharma and Biotech Inventions in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

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 study systems include clinical studies, animal experiments, and in vitro studies. In cases where the description does not include pharmacological study results, or where it provides such results for a compound but does not clearly identify the specific compound used in the study, the invention may be considered as not meeting the requirements for sufficient disclosure, enablement, and clarity.

Accordingly, in cases where the application only claims the active ingredient, any addition of claims directed to a pharmaceutical composition must take into account the description requirements applicable to pharmaceutical inventions. Not all additions of pharmaceutical composition claims will be acceptable. Support for pharmaceutical claims is also included in the mentioned requirements.

For biotechnology inventions such as genes, polypeptides, and proteins, Annex III clarifies that these products must be defined by their structural features, such as their particular sequences, to meet the enablement requirements. The Guidelines also suggest that, where it is not possible to describe these subject matters by structural features, they may be defined by the process by which they are produced (product-by-process). This explains the objections of the IP Office when a biological product subject matter is defined in the claim only by its properties, such as antigen-binding ability or immunogenic capability.

In addition, Article 12.10 of Circular 10 requires that for descriptions that include a sequence listing, the sequence listing must be presented in accordance with the WIPO ST.26 standard as a separate part and placed at the end of the description. In practice, the usual XML format is not submittable to the online filing system of the IP Office. Therefore, an ST.26 sequence listing must be converted into PDF format, which is not feasible for search purposes, for submission and for page-fee determination. This practice leads to a waste of resources in cases where sequences included in the description must still be reproduced for the issuance of a physical patent in ST.26 format, and it also increases the fee burden on applicants, since page fees may be counted twice for the sequences. However, the IP Office has not yet adopted any measures to change this practice.

For inventions relating to Markush groups, the Guidelines require that the description must include at least one illustrative example of the preparation method for each group of compounds. The number of examples must be sufficient to enable a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art to implement the invention and to assess that the invention achieves the intended effect across the entire scope defined by the claims. It can be interpreted that the number of examples must be adequate to represent all the embodiments covered by the claims. The IP Office has issued objections where the examples in the description are considered insufficient to represent or demonstrate the effect across all claimed embodiments. In such cases, the applicant needs to submit additional data demonstrating the effect, and show that such data are sufficient to be representative and/or to narrow the scope of the claims.

Disclaimer

The principles governing the acceptance of disclaimers, as explained in the Guidelines, are also the general principles applicable to amendments—namely, that a disclaimer must not add a new technical subject matter and/or alter the nature of the subject matter, or extend beyond the content disclosed in the original description. This appears to be stricter than the regulations in other jurisdictions, as it seems that disclaimers are only accepted when they have been disclosed in the original specification.

However, Annex III also provides an example in which a disclaimer is acceptable even though it is not disclosed in the original description. In this example, the exclusion of humans from mammals is accepted, even though the exclusion of humans is not originally disclosed, because an invention covering a subject matter involving humans is considered contrary to morality and public order. (This situation may correspond to the EPO’s acceptance of a disclaimer relating to a subject matter that is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons.)

There are few examples provided of acceptable and unacceptable disclaimers. The IP Office appears to remain very strict in examining this matter.

Post-Filing Experimental Data

The principles set out in Annex III for submitting supplementary data are as follows:

  • Supplementary experimental data are not considered part of the description and are only accepted as evidence;
  • The description must comply with the requirements of sufficiency of disclosure, clarity, and enablement; and
  • Such supplementary experimental data are intended only to clarify or substantiate the technical effect already described in the original specification, in comparison with the technical effect disclosed in the cited prior art for the purpose of demonstrating inventive step.

From these principles, it can be seen that there is no requirement for the supplementary data to have been available before the filing date. As long as such data demonstrates the same technical effect that has already been clearly disclosed in the original specification, it may be accepted for the purpose of supporting the inventive step of the claimed subject matter.

Based on the examples provided in this section, it should be noted that both the technical effect to be demonstrated and the experimental methods must already have been disclosed in the original specification. Supplementary data serves only, as its name suggests, to supplement what has already been disclosed. Vietnamese examiners may adopt a very strict approach when assessing post-filing data.

Conclusion

Although the Patent Examination Guidelines of the IP Office do not provide explicit tests for assessing enablement of the patent specification, nor for disclaimers or post-filing experimental data in a general sense, the principles and examples set out in Annex III are quite extensive and closely aligned with situations encountered in practice. They help align the examination approach of the IP Office with the understanding and handling of such issues by applicants. This document serves not only as guidance for IP examiners in conducting examination, but is also highly useful for applicants and IP practitioners in drafting specifications and making amendments.

In the future, it is expected that additional issues and practices that remain unclear will be further clarified by the IP Office through updates to the Patent Examination Guidelines.

Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
For businesses in Thailand’s regulated industries, the problem of “too many licenses” is one of the most familiar hurdles to getting a product to market. Take a simple example: importing the materials necessary to sell teriyaki chicken skewers. To legally do this, a business may need approvals from several different agencies—separate permits for the chicken (Department of Livestock Development), the dipping sauce (Thai FDA), the wooden skewers (Department of Forestry), and other ingredients, each under a different authority. This kind of overlap is often cited to argue for a “regulatory guillotine”—a systematic review to cut outdated or duplicative rules that slow investment and business activity. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Service Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Licensing Facilitation Act 2026) is Thailand’s most significant response yet to that concern. This article looks at the Facilitation Act 2026 through a life sciences and regulatory affairs lens—what it may mean for the manufacturers, importers, and distributors of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and similar products who routinely deal with several regulators to bring a single product to market. The Super License: One Approval Standing in for Many The reform with the clearest potential for regulated-product businesses is the law’s “super license” mechanism, referred to as a “main license” in the statute. Once a business obtains the main license for a regulated activity, it is automatically deemed to hold all related sublicenses issued by other agencies for that same activity, provided the activity has been designated as eligible in the Government Gazette. The Licensing Facilitation Act 2026 also creates a central application center, allowing applicants to submit a single application and pay all relevant fees at one point of contact, with the center routing the application to each agency through a shared information system. The potential benefits of this for businesses
Read More
July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each
Read More
July 1, 2026
Obtaining marketing authorization is a fundamental requirement for bringing pharmaceutical products to the Thai market. Companies must navigate the Thai Food and Drug Administration’s registration procedures while also complying with post-approval pharmacovigilance obligations, licensing requirements for manufacturing and importation, data protection rules, and other regulatory requirements. This guide provides an overview of Thailand’s regulatory framework for pharmaceutical marketing authorization, including available registration pathways, review timelines, application fees, postmarketing surveillance obligations, licensing requirements, exemptions, data exclusivity, freedom of information, and parallel import considerations. It is intended as a practical reference for pharmaceutical companies, regulatory affairs professionals, and others involved in bringing medicinal products to the Thai market. Download the guide below for a concise overview of the current requirements and procedures governing pharmaceutical marketing authorization in Thailand.
Read More