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 14, 2015

Should Vietnam Introduce Patent Term Extension?

Vietnam Pharma Update

Patents play a key role in encouraging the development of pharmaceutical products. It can take several hundred million dollars to discover, develop, and gain regulatory approval for a new drug, and funding for research is obtained primarily from profits made while the innovators have exclusive rights to market their medicines. The length of this exclusivity is therefore an important aspect of patent policy for pharmaceuticals.

In most countries, including Vietnam, invention patents have a 20-year term from the date of filing the patent application. However, considering the time consumed by the examination process, including delays beyond the patentee’s control, the actual effective life of a patent is less than 20 years—sometimes much less. Pharmaceutical patents, in particular, have a shorter effective period of protection than patents in other fields, as the application can take one year longer to process due to specification complexity, and it can take more than two years to complete regulatory procedures and conduct clinical trials before a patented pharmaceutical product can be launched in the market.

As a result, many countries, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, the United States, and most European countries, have legislation to extend patent terms to compensate for patent time lost in satisfying regulatory requirements. Vietnam, despite having joined the WTO and ASEAN, has thus far remained silent on the issue of patent term extension.

Proposals for Vietnam

One of the main objectives of the patent system in any country is to reward inventors appropriately for their efforts, innovation, and investment. Patent terms are, in theory, determined on the basis of providing inventors (and/or owners) a reasonable return. Accordingly, owners of pharmaceutical patents, with a much shorter effective patent life, do not receive optimal returns for their efforts unless a patent term extension is granted. It is reasonable, then, that Vietnam should follow the lead of other countries and adopt a provision for extending the protection term of pharmaceutical patents to compensate for the time lost due to delays in examination at the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) and the time taken to meet the country’s strict drug regulatory requirements. We believe Vietnam should develop a policy for compensating owners of pharmaceutical patents to ensure fairness.

Creating a framework for extending the term of a pharmaceutical patent is complicated and involves multiple factors, many of which are beyond the scope of this article. However, there are several general principles that should be followed to introduce new regulations relating to patent term extensions in Vietnam.

Patent term extensions should require the patentee (the holder of a currently valid pharmaceutical patent) to submit a formal request, providing evidence of valid marketing authorization, evidence of delay due to the registry, and any other reasons for extension. The NOIP’s approval, if granted, could be presented in an appropriate form, such as the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) given in European countries. In any form, the approval for patent term extension would be national in effect as a basic patent, coming into force only after the corresponding patent expires, and relating to a specific product. A patent term extension would have a maximum lifetime of a set number of years, for example, five years as in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.

Patent term extensions should only apply to pharmaceutical products which were approved to be marketed in Vietnam before the request for patent term extension, with a patent granted prior to the regulatory approval date. However, there could be some exceptions; for example, if the applicant could point out the obvious delay of the NOIP in the patent prosecution, then an extension may be applied to patents which were granted after the regulatory approval date.

Patent term extensions should be granted to patents protecting new substances which are active ingredients of any pharmaceutical product. This means the protection conferred by the patent during the term of the extension would only apply to substances which are active ingredients of the pharmaceutical products for which marketing approval was sought. This is reasonable because it often takes a long time to obtain marketing authorization for drugs with new active ingredients due to safety requirements.

An application for a patent term extension should be made within a specific duration, for example, six months from the granting date of the patent or the date that marketing approval was issued, whichever is later. The approval for patent term extension should be published in the Intellectual Property Gazette as well as the NOIP online database. Also, during the extension term, annuities on the basic patent should be charged.

Conclusion

Intellectual property protection is essential to incentivize investments and innovation in the research and development of new medicines which address unmet medical needs. Due to the non-standard circumstances and extensive time investments related to pharmaceutical discovery, development and regulatory review, we believe it is necessary and appropriate to take steps to maintain effective marketing exclusivity for pharmaceuticals through patent term extensions. At this time, Vietnam has not yet applied any policy of patent term extension for pharmaceuticals. However, as the Vietnamese government is increasingly open to public consultation, we believe that this matter should be considered in the coming time, when the Law on Intellectual Property is amended (perhaps in 2016 or 2017).

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on