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 While this is a fairly routine occurrence, what was notable was that two of the drugs on the list had their MAs withdrawn as a result of patent infringement—one of the first times this has happened in Vietnam.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​ 

May 11, 2026
Vietnam’s legal framework governing chemicals has undergone significant reform, with the Law on Chemicals No. 69/2025/QH15 (Law on Chemicals 2025) taking effect on January 1, 2026. Together with a comprehensive set of implementing instruments issued in January 2026, including three decrees (No. 24/2026/ND‑CP, No. 25/2026/ND‑CP, and No. 26/2026/ND‑CP) and two circulars (No. 01/2026/TT‑BCT and No. 02/2026/TT‑BCT), the Law on Chemicals 2025 has significantly reshaped chemical registration and management requirements. Determining What Constitutes a “New Chemical” Among the most notable changes introduced under the Law on Chemicals 2025 are the rules governing the registration and management of new chemicals, which must be registered with the authority before being placed on the Vietnam market. Although the concept of new chemical registration was first introduced under the Law on Chemicals 2007, the corresponding registration mechanism has remained largely dormant in practice. Under the Law on Chemicals 2025, a “new chemical” is defined as a substance that is not yet included in Vietnam’s National Chemical Inventory and the list of foreign chemical inventories recognized by the competent Vietnamese authority (List of Foreign Chemicals). On a literal reading, the definition in the new law may suggest that a substance qualifies as a new chemical only if it is absent from both lists. Accordingly, a chemical present in either list should be treated as an existing chemical without the registration burden. However, a different interpretation emerges from Decree 26, which specifically requires registration of “new chemicals” even where such substances already appear in the List of Foreign Chemicals. This implies that inclusion in a recognized foreign inventory does not automatically exempt a substance from new chemical registration in Vietnam. This inconsistency between the statutory definition in the Law on Chemicals 2025 and the implementing provisions of Decree 26 creates significant interpretative and compliance challenges. At
Read More
April 29, 2026
Effective June 22, 2026, Thai Industrial Standards (TIS) for food contact paper and cooking paper will be enforced as mandatory for sale in the Thai market. This move has important implications for product licensing and tightens hygiene, labeling, and chemical-safety requirements for food-contact and cooking paper products. Thailand is strengthening its regulatory framework for paper-based culinary materials against a backdrop of accelerating global commitments to ESG and sustainability, as such materials—particularly those derived from natural or recycled fibers—have emerged as key alternatives to plastics in food preparation, cooking, and packaging applications. As a result, regulators worldwide are tightening controls to ensure that sustainability initiatives do not compromise consumer safety, particularly regarding the potential migration of chemical substances into food. Regulatory Framework: Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards Standards under the TIS regime are generally classified into two categories. Voluntary standards allow manufacturers or importers to apply for a product license and affix the TIS mark to demonstrate product quality and build consumer confidence, but compliance is not legally required. Mandatory standards, by contrast, require manufacturers and importers to obtain a product license and affix the TIS mark before placing products on the Thai market, and noncompliant products cannot be legally sold. Previously, the TIS standards for food contact paper (TIS 2948-2562) and cooking paper (TIS 3438-2022) fell under the voluntary standard regime, meaning that obtaining a TIS license and displaying the TIS mark was optional. However, due to the increasing use of paper in food preparation and cooking, the Thai Industrial Standards Institute has determined that upgrading these standards to mandatory status is necessary to enhance consumer safety. As a result, all paper intended for food contact or cooking purposes must now obtain a TIS product license prior to sale in Thailand. Scope of the Standards The primary distinction between the
Read More
April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
Read More
March 30, 2026
In response to an emerging crisis on food safety, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 46/2026/ND-CP (Decree 46) on January 26, 2026, and Resolution No. 66.13/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 66.13) on January 27, 2026, setting out a number of substantive changes to the procedure and strict requirements for the declaration, registration, and importation of food products. Both instruments took effect upon issuance. However, shortly after they entered into force, food businesses encountered significant implementation challenges, particularly with respect to state inspection procedures at the customs clearance stage for imported products. In response, the government issued Resolution No. 09/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 09) on February 4, 2026, temporarily suspending Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 until a new effective date of April 16, 2026. Continued Suspension of Implementation of Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 After considering feedback gathered by the Ministry of Health from food businesses and other stakeholders during the suspension period, the Vietnam Government Office issued a notice on March 20, 2026, agreeing to extend the suspension until the issuance of an amended Law on Food Safety and its guiding decree. Following this notice, on March 22, 2026, the Ministry of Health prepared a draft resolution to implement the notice and replace Resolution 09. Under the draft resolution, the effectiveness of Decree 46 and Resolution No. 66.13 would continue to be suspended until the amended Law on Food Safety takes effect, except for the provisions under Resolution 66.13 allowing flexibility in documents evidencing product efficacy, which would take effect on April 16, 2026, and remain effective until the Law on Food Safety is replaced (but not later than February 28, 2027). Accordingly, for products subject to the registration declaration procedure, such as health supplements, efficacy may be substantiated by either (i) scientific evidence supporting the declared function and effects of the product
Read More