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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More