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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More