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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation