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​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More