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

August 9, 2017

Patenting Business Methods in Vietnam

Background

Modern e-commerce and the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) have accelerated innovation while advancing collaboration. This new environment has revolutionized not only traditional business activities such as commerce, administration, and finance, but also fundamental interactions such as communications between employees, servers, and automated machinery, and between enterprises and their clients. Though intangible, the business methods used to navigate this new environment have become important proprietary assets for both large corporations and small businesses.

Traditionally, companies in Vietnam and around the world have protected their business methods as trade secrets through physical measures such as security clearances, and legal measures such as nondisclosure agreements. A classic example of traditional trade secret protections involves a highly publicized case from 2006. Two employees of a global beverage company with access to their company’s secret new formula contacted top-level executives at a rival company offering to exchange the recipe for millions of dollars. Fortunately, the executives at the rival company were responsible competitors, immediately reporting this offer to the FBI. The FBI investigated and the U.S. Department of Justice successfully convicted the perpetrators based in part on surveillance footage of the employees stuffing confidential files and samples of the new product into their bags as they left restricted areas.

As the business environment has evolved, and many trade secrets are now stored digitally on servers or cloud networks, security is no longer as easy as locking proprietary information in a vault. As such, traditional security measures may no longer be adequate to prevent theft. In practice, espionage techniques (e.g., hacking) and network attacks (e.g., viruses, spyware, and ransomware) are growing increasingly sophisticated, leaving trade secrets at risk. Despite this risk, businesses have no choice but to utilize digital data storage methods, as modern business models and tools include supply-chain algorithms, algorithms generating marketing analytics, and consumer data, which are either impractical or impossible to physically lock in a vault. Further, with the rise of the mobile employee, many companies’ trade secrets must be accessible to employees from anywhere in the world.

Protection in Vietnam

As Vietnam becomes more economically attractive through trade agreements, coalitions, and rapid economic growth, companies must seriously consider investing in Vietnam or being left behind their competitors. However, when companies calculate investment risk in emerging markets, they need reliable forms of intellectual property protection for their business methods. Patents can viably protect some trade secrets; however, Vietnam currently excludes business methods from the scope of patentable subject matter. Under Article 59.2 of the Law on Intellectual Property, business methods are listed as subject matter that is ineligible for patent protection. This means that while a traditional trade secret—such as the secret formula of a beverage—is likely patentable in Vietnam, a proprietary business method—such as a supply-chain algorithm that predicts the demand and costs of raw goods—is likely not. This is unusual, as many countries include business methods as patentable material. For Vietnam to continue experiencing financial prosperity and economic growth, the scope of patentable subject matter should include business models like most other patent offices in the world.

According to the Vietnamese Guidelines for patent examination, if claimed subject matter (a) is merely directed to a method of doing business, (b) does not use technical means, (c) does not solve any technical problems, and (d) does not create any technical effects, the subject matter will be excluded from patent protection. However, this means if the claimed subject matter involves methods of doing business and specifies an apparatus or a technical process for carrying out at least some part of these methods, the subject matter will not be excluded from patent protection.

In practice, when the Vietnam Patent Office examines business methods, much attention is paid to the designation of the claimed subject matter and the International Patent Classification (IPC) symbol used. To reduce the risk of an objection, technical features providing technical effects should be clearly recited in the claims instead of only being disclosed in the description. Applicants must always bear in mind that, in Vietnam, a patent application must demonstrate a technical feature before it is assessed on the requirements of patentability.

Outlook for the Future

In order to encourage companies to invest in Vietnam, the Vietnam Patent Office should move toward more liberal protection of business methods, following the model of the United States and many other patent offices. Meanwhile, companies should proactively identify and incorporate technical features providing unexpected technical effects into the steps of their business methods to be protected. By doing so, they may be able to protect the parts of their business methods that are difficult to secure as trade secrets through technical features that are protected by patents.

It is hoped that in the near future patent scope will more generously protect business methods in Vietnam with stipulations to be modified like the rest of the world and more transparent guidelines.

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