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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 6, 2026
Thailand has introduced new requirements for online social media platforms to verify the identity of paying advertisers before publishing their advertisements. On May 5, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Commission published the Notification on Measures for Prevention of Technology Crime for Online Social Media (No. 2) in the Government Gazette. The notification, which aims to prevent technology crimes such as fraud and scams, takes effect 180 days after publication (i.e., on November 1, 2026). Mandatory Advertiser Identity Verification Online social media service providers must verify the identity of every advertiser before publishing an advertisement. Verification remains valid for up to one year from the most recent verification date. The notification requires social media providers to use either of the following methods when verifying advertisers: Document-based verification: Examine government-issued identity documents (e.g., national ID, passport, or juristic person registration certificate), cross-check the connection between the advertiser and the identity documents (e.g., facial comparison with photo ID), and ensure that the identity documents are verifiable against reliable sources. Digital identity verification: Use an identity verification system with a level of assurance no lower than that prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission. Advertiser Data Collection and Retention Service providers must collect and retain certain data—including name, identification number, and contact details—from the start of the advertising service and for a minimum of 90 days after the end of the advertising service relationship. The same requirements apply where there is a third-party payer, such as an ad agency. Implications for Affected Businesses The notification raises two key areas of concern for affected businesses: Social media platforms must implement know-your-advertiser (KYA) onboarding as described above, including document upload and identity matching processes. The 180-day implementation window requires immediate technical and operational planning. The collection and retention of national ID cards, passport copies, and other personal
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a