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​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More