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

Subscribe to Updates

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.

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