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 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
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
Read More