On July 14, 2023, Myanmar’s Ministry of Planning and Finance issued Notification No. 50/2023, which sets out the rules, requirements, and procedures for registered trademark owners to protect their intellectual property rights through customs recordation in accordance with the relevant section of the Trademark Law 2019. The notification is accompanied by eight forms to be used in trademark-related customs matters (three for use by applicants and five for use by the Customs Department). Customs Recordation Owners of trademarks registered under the Trademark Law 2019 can apply (directly or via a legal representative) for customs recordation to protect against cross-border trade in counterfeit goods bearing their registered marks. Applications using the specified form should attach the required documentary evidence, including any separately specified by the Customs Department. If the application for recordation is accepted, the Customs Department will provide the applicant with a registration number within 15 days of receiving the application. Recordations are valid for two years from the acceptance date of the application and can be renewed every two years, 30 days before the expiration date. According to the notification, owners of marks recorded by the Customs Department must notify the department within three working days upon amendment or withdrawal of any information related to the mark at the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and submit any necessary documentation. Suspension Order Regardless of whether a customs recordation has been filed, owners of trademarks registered under the Trademark Law 2019 can request a suspension order to prevent the release of goods into free circulation by laying out sufficient grounds for believing that counterfeit goods are being or will be imported into the country. Applications can be in English or Myanmar language, and a translation may be required upon the Customs Department’s request. Applications can be submitted in person, by post,

The amended IP Law adopted by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, which took effect on January 1, 2023, revises the definition of an industrial design, which had been unaltered since the introduction of the first IP Law in 2005. This amended definition will certainly have a significant influence on the understanding, application, and interpretation of regulations on protection of industrial designs in Vietnam. The revised definition reads as follows, with the new additions in bold (no words were removed from the old definition): Article 4.13: Industrial design means the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly of a complex product represented in shapes, lines, colors, or any combination thereof, and visible during the utilization of the product or complex product. This definition can be separated into two groups of objects: Group 1 Industrial design means: 1.1: the external appearance of a product 1.2: represented in shapes, lines, colors, or any combination thereof, and 1.3: visible during the utilization of the product. Group 2 Industrial design means: 2.1: the external appearance of a component for assembly of a complex product, 2.2: represented in shapes, lines, colors, or any combination thereof, and 2.3: visible during the utilization of the complex product. In principle, Group 2 must include at least one object that is not covered in Group 1, because if Group 2 is completely covered by Group 1, it would be unnecessary to revise the definition to reflect the “new” group of objects. We will consider the above definition in such spirit.   Group 1 Objects Under the revised definition, conditions 1.1 and 1.2 are unchanged, and condition 1.3 is added. Condition 1.3 essentially reflects the exclusion already specified in Article 64.3 of the IP Law, i.e., “the external appearance of a product that

Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vietnam offices contributed content for the latest edition of the Practical Law Life Sciences Global Guide. The guide provides a comparative overview, in Q&A format, of laws and regulations on pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other life sciences products in dozens of jurisdictions around the world. The Life Sciences Global Guide is divided into two sections: Regulation (see more details here) and Commercialization, which covers the following topics: Overview of the life sciences sector Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation and reimbursement Distribution and sale Cross-border trade and parallel imports Advertising to the public and engagement with patient organizations Advertising to healthcare professionals and organizations: Gifts and incentives and transparency and disclosure Patents: Conditions for patentability, registration, length of protection, infringement, international treaties Trademarks: Requirements, registration Competition law issues: Authorities and legislation, commercial contracts and competition law, licensing approvals and formalities Product liability: Regulators, medicinal product liability law, liable partners, defenses, product liability claims, remedies Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full “Life Sciences Commercialization in Vietnam” section can be found on the Practical Law website.

Southeast Asia has experienced a significant increase in foreign investment, which has not only brought innovation but also raised questions about protecting such innovation. Investors are increasingly interested in patenting the proprietary technology that plays a vital role in numerous businesses today. Recently, particular interest has been shown in innovations related to artificial intelligence (AI) technology and software. Are these types of innovations patentable, and if so, how? When it comes to Southeast Asia, the answers to these questions are not straightforward, due to the lack of uniform patent laws across the region. Issues of Patentability The patentability of computer software has long been a topic of discussion, predating the emergence of AI tools. Many jurisdictions have specific rules regarding the patentability of software. Pure software, defined solely by source code, may not qualify for patent protection but can be safeguarded under copyright laws. AI-related software often involves intricate algorithms, datasets, and training methodologies that pose challenges when it comes to satisfying the enablement requirement for disclosure. However, algorithms, mathematical methods, and abstract ideas are generally considered non-patentable subject matter in many jurisdictions. Although software implementing AI may incorporate innovative algorithms, obtaining patents solely for algorithms can be difficult in certain countries. For instance, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam explicitly exclude computer programs from patentable subject matter. However, a potential workaround in these countries is to describe the software as being connected to a tangible medium. This approach could overcome rejections based on subject matter during substantive examination. Moreover, in Indonesia, a computer program can be eligible for patent protection if its characteristics (i.e., instructions) have a technical effect and serve to address a tangible or intangible problem. Among Southeast Asian countries, Singapore has the most lenient patent regime, even explicitly addressing AI innovations. The country has implemented a