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 6, 2022

Update on View of Inventions Related to Computer Programs in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

To view this article in Vietnamese, please click here.

In accordance with Article 59.2 of the Law on Intellectual Property issued in 2005, as amended and supplemented in 2009 and 2019 (“IP Law”), Vietnamese law currently does not recognize the protection of computer programs as inventions. However, in practice, if the subject-matter of an invention related to a computer program has technical characteristics and the program, when running on a computer, creates a further technical effect going beyond the usual physical interactions between a program and a computer, this subject-matter is likely to be protected as an invention.

This condition is not codified, but is reflected in Article 5.8.2.5 of the patent examination guidelines issued in 2010, as amended and supplemented in 2020 – a reference document showing the guidance issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”).

Currently, at the formality examination stage, these “technical” conditions for inventions related to computer programs are quite easy to meet as it is only necessary to show that the subject-matter is a “Method performed by a computer for a purpose …”, “Processing apparatus…”, or “Computer-readable storage medium storing a program to perform the method…”.

In the substantive examination stage, however, the “technical” condition is further scrutinized through the assessment of technical features stated in the subject-matter to determine whether the interaction between the program and the computer creates a further technical effect. The IP Office often issues office actions on substantive examination results because the computer-related patent application does not solve any technical problem and does not produce a further technical effect going beyond the normal interactions between the program and the computer.

On December 31, 2021, the IP Office added to the patent examination guidelines mentioned above by issuing an annex with specific guidelines for examining patent applications relating to computer programs. The annex provides detailed guidance on assessing “technicality” in both the formality and substantive examination stages, gives some examples of further technical effects, and outlines several types of subject-matters related to computer programs.

Below are some interesting examples of further technical effects that a program can produce when running on a computer.

Example 1: In addition to a subject-matter related to a computer program being executed by a computer, a corresponding computer program that executes features of the subject-matter will produce a further technical effect when running on the computer. For example, a computer program to implement the method of controlling an anti-lock braking system (ABS) on a car, or determine emissions by X-ray equipment.

Example 2: If a computer program is designed on the basis of specific technical considerations about the internal operations of the computer on which the program is run, such as the program being adapted to a particular computer architecture, it can be seen as producing a further technical effect. For example, the computer program controlling an execution of a function or an internal operation of the computer, such as balancing a processor’s load or allocating memory, often produces a further technical effect.

Example 3: Programs for low-level code processing, such as generators or compilers, are likely technical. However, a computer program for a non-technical purpose that requires less computation time than a known program for the same purpose will not produce a further technical effect. A subject-matter related to a computer program cannot be considered technical only because the computer program is designed so that it can be performed automatically by the computer.

Specific Guidelines for Subject-Matter Types

The last section of the annex provides an analysis of 10 types of subject-matters related to computer programs, explaining whether and when they can be protected. These types include those in which computer programs implement features related to: (i) mathematical methods; (ii) artificial intelligence and machine learning; (iii) simulation, design, or modeling; (iv) diagrams, rules, and methods of playing games; (v) business methods; (vi) information modeling, programming operations, and programming languages; (vii) data retrieval, formats, and structures; (viii) database management and information retrieval systems; (ix) information display; and (x) user interfaces. The guidelines for three of these are summarized below:

  1. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Artificial intelligence and machine learning rely on computational models and algorithms with an inherently abstract mathematical nature. However, there are still cases in which subject-matters related to artificial intelligence and machine learning can be protected as inventions in Vietnam, for example.

“1. Computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program that powers the computer to output quantitative values of the reputation of a hotel based on textual data about the reputation of the hotel, in which:

this program consists of the first neural network and the second neural network connected in such a way that the second neural network receives the output from the first neural network mentioned above;

The first neural network mentioned above includes…

weights of the second neural network above…; and

program causes the computer to do…”

In this subject-matter, the purpose of “output[ting] quantitative values of the reputation of a hotel” can be considered to be non-technical, for business purposes. However, the features in the claims identify a particular technical embodiment that goes beyond aspects of a mere business method. Therefore, from the aspect of pre-processing training data for machine learning, these features are considered to serve a technical purpose, and contribute to the technical characteristic of the present invention. Therefore, the above subject-matter can be protected as an invention.

  1. Information Modeling, Programming Operations, and Programming Languages

Information modeling is a mental activity being considered non-technically. However, if an information model is intended to be used in the context of an invention to solve a particular technical problem, it may contribute to a technical characteristic of the invention. Features that determine how the model is actually stored (using relational database technology, for example) can also contribute technically.

In a visual programming environment, providing specific graphical building blocks is a part of the programming language and makes no technical contribution if the only effect is to reduce the mental effort of the programmer. Providing specific programming structures may allow programmers to write shorter programs, but that does not qualify as a technical effect because every result reducing a program’s length ultimately depends on how programming constructs are used by programmers. In contrast, the automatic processing of a machine code by splitting it into an instruction sequence and an operand sequence and replacing repetitive instructions with macro instructions to produce an optimized code with reduced memory size will contribute in terms of technical aspect. In this case, the effect does not depend on how the programmer uses the macro instructions.

  1. User Interfaces

A user interface, especially a graphical user interface (GUI), consists of signs that represent information and receive input as a part of a human-computer interaction. The signs defining the user’s input are likely more technical in nature than those dealing only with the output and display of data, because the input requires compatibility with the machine’s predefined protocol, while the output can largely be dictated by the subjective preferences of the user.

Ways of providing input, such as gestures or keystrokes, that only reflect the user’s subjective preferences, or the conventions or rules of a game, leading to actual ergonomic advantages that cannot objectively be established, do not make a technical contribution. However, performance-oriented improvements for the detection of an input, such as making gesture recognition faster or more accurate or reducing the processing load of the device when performing the recognition, are technical contributions.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
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
Read More