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

September 8, 2016

Vietnam: Draft Circular on Compulsory Licensing

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s Ministry of Health is drafting a circular on compulsory licensing for pharmaceutical patents. From the view of protecting and promoting innovation in the industry, it is worthwhile to consider whether this is the appropriate time to introduce such regulations. This circular, a draft version of which has been released for public comment, could create a slippery slope into abuse of the patent system if certain shortcomings are not addressed.

International Practice

The TRIPs Agreement, since taking effect in 1995, has recognized compulsory licensing as an exception to patent rights in restricted situations, setting out conditions and limitations for any invocation of the compulsory licensing mechanism. The 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health shed further light on compulsory licensing in the pharmaceutical area.

In Southeast Asia, several countries have granted compulsory licenses for pharmaceutical products. Malaysia took the lead in 2004, issuing the world’s first compulsory licenses under TRIPs to allow importation of three medicines combatting HIV/AIDS. Indonesia followed suit and issued compulsory licenses in two waves, one in 2004 and another in 2012. During the political chaos from 2006 to 2008, Thailand also granted compulsory licenses for seven drugs.

At first, these countries issued the compulsory licenses to address healthcare crises related to dangerous epidemics. However, over time, there has been a tendency to use compulsory licenses to facilitate public access to drugs to treat non-communicable diseases as well. This has stirred up massive debates in these countries and also in the international forum in respect of the legitimacy of compulsory licensing and the real benefits it could bring about.

As a developing country with a large and diverse population and corresponding healthcare needs, Vietnam has been keeping an eye on regional practice, with a view to introducing the most effective mechanism of compulsory licensing.

Domestic Situation

The concept of compulsory licensing first appeared in Vietnamese legislation in the Ordinance on Protection of Industrial Property (1989), and was significantly improved through the passage of the Law on Intellectual Property of 2005. However, Vietnam has still not made full use of the mechanism. The closest it has come was in the outbreak of the bird flu epidemic, which claimed a toll of 41 victims in November 2005. The regulatory agencies considered granting compulsory license for certain antiviral drugs, but the manufacturer eventually issued voluntary licenses to some local producers and no compulsory license was needed.

However, even if there had been no voluntary licenses, Vietnam would have encountered statutory obstacles in granting the compulsory license due to the lack of specific regulations on the issue, as well as the country’s effort to attract investment as it readied for WTO accession. The current effort to formally legislate compulsory licensing should also be considered in the context of Vietnam’s desire to attract investment and the need for compliance with international commitments.

Shortcomings of the Draft Circular

While the draft circular marks a serious effort to provide further guidance on compulsory licensing in the pharmaceutical area, it creates some discrepancies with other existing legal instruments regarding matters such as the conditions for granting compulsory licenses, the procedures for examining applications, and the calculation of “adequate remuneration” in the event of a compulsory license. The draft also runs contrary to the TRIPs Agreement as well as the IP Law in its omission of a requirement for a prior unsuccessful negotiation between the patentee and the compulsory license applicant.

In some articles, the wording is quite broad and vague, which could invite arbitrary application or confusion in implementing the regulations. Most critically, under Article 4, compulsory licensing could apply in cases involving “…a drug necessary for the treatment of diseases with high contraction rates in the community, a drug necessary to save a human life, and other events as determined by the Minister of Health”. In other words, almost any medicine could be vulnerable to compulsory licensing.

Patent holders may feel the current draft is biased against them, as it does not offer any regime allowing patent holders to raise their dissent or even state their positions during the compulsory license examination process, and limits their avenues to protest compulsory license rulings. In addition, the draft does not require applicants to pay fees, but compels patent holders to pay fees when applying for a termination of the compulsory license.

Finally, it is debatable whether there is an urgent need for a compulsory licensing circular at this juncture. Since the bird flu outbreak in 2005, there have been no situations that could trigger compulsory licensing. Other issues such as the obstacles in the withdrawal of marketing authorization in cases of patent infringement are arguably more pressing and more vital to the development of Vietnam’s medical and scientific capacity. Regardless, before enacting this circular, we believe the Ministry of Health needs to go to greater lengths to make the draft consistent with other laws and ensure fair treatment for all businesses in the economy.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More