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

May 5, 2017

Securing Protection for “Unpatentable” Computer Programs in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnamese software programmers have developed a strong reputation worldwide, and the government considers the software industry to be very important. As a result, this industry is booming. However, more effective intellectual property protection in the software sector is necessary to encourage further foreign investment, and to promote innovation.

Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property excludes computer programs from patent protection as inventions. Under Article 59 of the Intellectual Property Law, computer programs are listed—with things like discoveries, scientific theories, business methods, and methods of treatment—as types of subject matter that are expressly not eligible for patent protection. Instead, computer programs are covered by the Copyright Law, where enforcement in Vietnam is known to be weak.

Within the patent system, however, there are still avenues for protecting computer programs. While a computer program itself, in the form of code, cannot be patented, the Vietnamese Guidelines for patent examination provide for the concept of “computer-implemented inventions.” A computer-implemented invention is an invention involving the use of computers, computer networks, or other programmable apparatus whereby prima facie one or more of the features of the claimed invention are realized wholly or partly by means of a program or programs. This invention could be patentable if it has “a technical character, and is a technical solution for solving a technical problem by technical means to attain a technical effect.”

In the Guidelines, more attention is paid to “technical effect” than to “technical character” or “technical solution.” It is important to note that a computer program, when running on a computer, must provide a “further technical effect” going beyond normal physical interactions (such as electrical currents) between the program and the computer. A further technical effect may be found, for example, in the control of an industrial process, in the processing of data which represent physical entities, or in the internal functioning of the computer itself or its interfaces under the influence of the program and could, for example, affect the efficiency or security of a process.

Another issue worth noting is Vietnamese practice regarding the patent claim format for computer-implemented inventions. The IP Law defines an invention as a “technical solution in the form of a product or a process.” In practice, patent examiners usually interpret a product to be a tangible  product, that is, something that can be held, touched, or seen. As a result, the designation of subject-matter of a claim must be a tangible product or a process.

Accordingly, for a computer-implemented invention, designations such as “computer program,” “computer software,” “signal-carrying program,” or “signal structure” are not acceptable, as these are intangible. Alternative designations such as “computer program product” or “software product” are similarly not permissible. Patent applications filed in Vietnam with these claim formats generally result in a rejection.

The formats below provide an example of some claims which would not be acceptable in Vietnam:

  • “A computer program which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to implement a method…”
  • “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer program instructions…”
  • “A video signal representative of a program…”

Patent experts do, however, have an alternative. In general, a designation like “computer program” could be converted into a designation like “storage medium containing computer program” and be approved. Acceptable designations include, for example, “computer-readable medium,” “storage medium,” “method of operating a data processing system,” or “apparatus for data processing.” Optionally, but preferably, a general statement like “embodiments described herein may be realized in various forms, for example, as a computer-implemented method, as a computer-readable medium” should be added to the original disclosure of all computer-implemented inventions to support any possible conversion.

As a result, the unacceptable claims listed above could be converted into acceptable formats as follows:

  • “A computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to implement a method…”
  • “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer program instructions…”
  • “A storage medium containing a video signal representative of a program…”

Thus, despite the challenges posed by formality requirements under the current patent system, it is possible to obtain patent protection for computer programs—as computer-implemented inventions—with a clear understanding of the current practice.

As a motivation for filing computer-implemented inventions, patent enforcement in Vietnam is improving, with administrative court actions on the rise in the pharmaceutical, agrochemical, and medical device sectors, with foreign rights holders typically winning their cases. The number of patent enforcement cases in the telecommunication and software fields is expected to rise as well, and patent filing in these fields accounts for a substantial, and growing, percentage of all applications.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.
Read More