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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with