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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More