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

October 25, 2016

Sanctioning of Patent-Infringing Drugs in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Vietnam Pharma Update

The effective protection of pharmaceutical patents has always been very important in national systems of intellectual property law. While effectiveness can be measured in many ways, any effective system must include a transparent and swift mechanism of legal enforcement with a clear link between the sanctioning of IP infringements and the elimination of infringing products from the market. In this respect, the current patent system in Vietnam still faces considerable challenges, particularly as Vietnam continues to pursue deeper and more widespread integration into the global economy through multilateral trade agreements, such as the recently negotiated EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Legal Obstacles

In recent years, patent infringement cases—especially in the pharmaceutical sector—have been on the rise in Vietnam. Despite this trend, in practice, the fundamental rules of the legal system have yet to provide a clear legal framework to serve as a precedent for an effective enforcement process. Although the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property contains provisions that could be viewed as quite standard, including an entire chapter on the protection requirements for patents (Chapter VII, Section 1), and details on the rights of patent owners and the enforcement measures to be implemented should violations occur (Chapter IX, Section 1), these provisions are quite solitary in the context of the provisions necessary for effective enforcement of pharmaceutical patent protection.

As an example, the Law on Pharmacy—another key legal document which is supposed to exist in parallel with the Law on Intellectual Property—is completely silent on how to deal with drugs that are considered patent infringements. This law should, at the very least, be expected to have basic principles for addressing this problem. Specifically, neither the 2005 Law on Pharmacy (in effect through December 31, 2016) nor the 2016 Law on Pharmacy (taking effect on January 1, 2017) includes any provision directly setting out the mechanism for dealing with the trading and circulation of drugs that have been concluded to be patent infringements—not even at the minimum level, such as clauses simply referring to the regulations on intellectual property. The 2005 Law on Pharmacy contains only one provision on “industrial property,” under the definition of counterfeit drugs, where the term is limited to the “counterfeiting of names and industrial designs that have been registered for protection” (Article 2.24(d)). The law still states in Article 35.4 that the Minister of Health will provide specific details on the withdrawal of drug registration numbers.

The 2016 Law on Pharmacy is no clearer, providing guidance on IP and patents only in terms of encouraging the protection of traditional medicines (Article 7.7) and facilitating the registration for circulation of generic drugs after patents have expired (Articles 7.5, 7.6, and 8.2). The new law still has no provisions on the mechanism for removing drugs from the market if they are found to be patent infringements, not even in the form of revocation or withdrawal of the drug registration numbers that have been granted to these products. No bridge has been built between the Law on Intellectual Property and the Law on Pharmacy to create a linkage mechanism in the process of enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical sector.

Despite these obstacles, the Ministry of Health has attempted to enact regulations to provide clearer guidance on vague provisions of the law, such as the revocation of the marketing authorization of an infringing drug once a conclusion of infringement is issued by the competent authorities. An example is Circular No. 44/2014/TT-BYT, dated November 25, 2014, which is currently in force and has an entire chapter dedicated to the issue of IP with respect to registered drugs. However, since this circular was issued, the regulations on IP with respect to registered drugs have been inconsistently applied. Even though, in many cases, the patent holders provided all of the necessary documents and evidence to request that the regulations be applied, the marketing authorizations of patent-infringing drugs were not withdrawn or revoked.

What Does the Future Hold?

In the next few years, the number of patent dispute cases in the pharmaceutical sector is anticipated to continue on an upward trend. As the dispute resolution mechanism currently in place has not been satisfactory in past cases, it is not an appropriate model for the future. However, if the government of Vietnam is truly determined to build and set up a mechanism for settlement of patent disputes in the pharmaceutical sector, perhaps this is not such a difficult task. As discussed above, the lack of a bridge between the laws on intellectual property and pharmacy has led to uncertainty in addressing the consequences of patent infringement cases. This situation, whether inadvertently or intentionally, remained unresolved in the new Law on Pharmacy, with Articles 58 and 62 of the law only setting out cases in which marketing authorizations and drugs are to be revoked or recalled from the marketplace due to issues of quality, safety, and efficacy. Nowhere does the law mention the revocation or recall of marketing authorizations and drugs from the marketplace due to IP/patent violations. Additionally, there is no “catch-all” provision, as found in many other Vietnamese laws, allowing the recall of marketing authorizations and drugs for “other cases prescribed by the law.”

The most easily envisioned scenario is that in the future, the Ministry of Health of Vietnam will step aside and consider the handling of patent infringements in the pharmaceutical sector to be completely independent of the processes of granting marketing authorization and recalling drugs already circulating in the market. If this happens, a situation will arise where the authorities handling pharmaceutical patent infringements can issue judgments or decisions in cases prohibiting sale or circulation or ordering the withdrawal of certain drugs, while the state authorities for pharmacy remain completely outside the process of handling the cases. The marketing authorization of a drug will still persist, unless the violator voluntarily has it withdrawn. In practice, if this option is chosen, it will be a step backward in the process of building a truly effective enforcement mechanism for pharmaceutical patents, when even the Ministry of Health, local health management agencies, and hospitals consider the existence of a marketing authorization to be “sufficient” to prove the legality of the sale and circulation of the related drug. Meanwhile, these agencies pay almost no regard to the coexisting provisions on patents.

Another approach in a “new” but “old” direction is that when the 2016 Law on Pharmacy comes into effect on January 1, 2017, the Ministry of Health may have to issue a circular amending Circular No. 44/2014/TT-BYT. In our opinion, this amended circular must have clear terms defining situations where drugs or marketing authorizations may or may not be revoked or withdrawn in the event of an effective decision or conclusion on patent infringement. (We note that cases of revocation and withdrawal of drug marketing authorizations are already defined in Circular No. 44/2014/TT-BYT, but this regulation has, in reality, never been applied correctly.)

Ultimately, it is not so difficult to create a clear, transparent, and interconnected legal framework to effectively resolve the issue of handling pharmaceutical patent infringements. The difficulty lies in the true determination of the management agencies to make the change. The thin line between speech and action will be the measuring stick of whether or not the government of Vietnam truly wishes to establish an effective enforcement regime in the field of pharmaceutical patents.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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