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

November 3, 2015

Vietnam: Drug Innovator Scores Win

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On September 11, 2015, the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) issued a decision to withdraw the marketing authorizations (MAs) for nine pharmaceutical products on the market. While this is a fairly routine occurrence, what was notable was that two of the drugs on the list had their MAs withdrawn as a result of patent infringement—one of the first times this has happened in Vietnam. The withdrawal makes a strong statement that Vietnam is getting serious about enforcing patent rights in the pharmaceutical realm.

Case Summary

The pharmaceuticals in question were cardiac-arrest drugs in 5mg and 10mg sizes produced by a generic manufacturer based in southern Vietnam. In early 2015, these drugs came to the attention of a European pharmaceutical innovator which had developed and patented a cutting-edge compound that contributes to preventing heart attacks. The company had been widely marketing the compound under various brands and had gained significant market share. Believing that the generic drugs infringed its patent, the European pharmaceutical company called on the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in April to handle the patent infringement administratively.

At the time the request was made, two other patent infringement cases at MOST had reached a state of stagnation, so MOST took cautious steps to examine the case and decided to raid the producer only after more than one month of case review. At the raid, the producer did not deny the infringement, but claimed to be ignorant of the laws relating to intellectual property. After inspecting the producer’s records, MOST found that the producer had imported dozens of kilograms of raw materials for producing the infringing goods, and had sold almost 8 million of the infringing tablets.

In July, MOST issued a conclusion of infringement and ordered the infringer to withdraw its MA licenses and to destroy the inventory of the infringing drugs. Strictly complying with these orders, the local producer destroyed the infringing drugs in the presence of a MOST witness, and requested the DAV to withdraw the MA licenses of the infringing products.

The withdrawal of the MAs by the DAV on September 11 was a sweeping victory for the patent holder, as it will lead to a complete elimination of the infringing goods from the market and also establish a bar to future generic entry by the infringer. In addition, it was attained in an incredibly short time frame compared to most cases of patent infringement.

MA Withdrawal: Statutes vs. Reality

In Vietnam, there is no clear link between the expiration of pioneer drug patents and generic drug marketing approval. Consequently, the DAV can grant MAs without considering the validity of patents that cover the drugs, leaving the matter of patent enforcement in the hands of other agencies. Under the prevailing regulations, the DAV is required to withdraw an MA upon a verdict of patent infringement rendered by a competent enforcement body such as the court or MOST. However, it seems that such regulations had not been tested until MOST ruled in this case.

Despite the clarity in the statutes, the regime of MA withdrawal still faces obstacles in practice. The DAV often faces great pressure from both the mass media and other state agencies when ruling against local generic producers. Opponents allege that such rulings could play havoc with Vietnam’s efforts in developing the local generic industry and will limit the public’s access to low-price drugs—legitimate concerns in a developing country like Vietnam. Given the pressure, the DAV often lets the dust settle before deciding on MA withdrawal. So far, however, it seems that the dust around pharmaceutical patent infringement almost never settles.

Given the sensitive issues involved and the escalation of other cases, the DAV’s decision to withdraw the MA in favor of the European pharmaceutical company came as welcome news. The withdrawal could signal improvement in Vietnam’s patent enforcement regime, which has often fallen short of what is expected from a country which has been a member of TRIPs for years and wishes to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which aims for stronger IPR protection.

Tilleke & Gibbins acted for the pharmaceutical company in this case.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More