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 30, 2018

Vietnam: Examining the NOIP’s Approach to Post-Grant Correction of Patents

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

In Vietnam, granted patents can be amended in certain circumstances under provisions found in the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). For example, Article 97 of the IP Law gives a patent owner the right to request correction of errors made by the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) in a granted patent.

The law is silent regarding correction of errors made by other parties, such as the patent owner itself, or its local patent agent. However, to ensure the accuracy of a patent, common sense dictates that correctable errors should not be limited to those made by the NOIP, but should extend to any other obvious errors.

In practice, a patent owner can request the NOIP to correct obvious errors that are not clearly the fault of the NOIP. However, there is no definition in Vietnamese legal documents of what constitutes an “obvious error.” A recent case involving a European pharmaceutical company brought this issue to the forefront.

Post-Grant Correction Rejected

The company in question holds a Vietnamese patent that was granted nearly a decade ago for a compound for the treatment of a medical condition. The company is now battling infringing generic products in the Vietnam market, but faced a temporary setback when it discovered, in the course of litigation, that its patent had an error in the chemical formula (structural formula) of the compound, although the compound name was written correctly.

It is worth noting that the patent originated from a foreign priority document, which was enclosed with the Vietnam application, in which the correct structural formula and compound name were shown. It is likely that the error was introduced during the translation of the patent specification into Vietnamese by a local patent agent.

As a result of this error, the company recognized that enforcement efforts could be hindered, as generic producers could argue that they were not technically infringing the patent, because the compound in their products was not the same as the patented compound, based on the (erroneous) structural formula in a claim of the granted patent.

The company thus proactively petitioned for a correction of the granted patent, reasoning that the error in the structural formula was obvious and should have been readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner in charge of the patent certainly should have had the capacity to discover the error before granting the patent, having reviewed the priority document and the corresponding patents issued previously by other patent offices, which all showed the correct structural formula. The NOIP, however, refused to correct the patent, claiming that the error was not obvious.

What Makes an Error Obvious?

The NOIP’s refusal notice referred to some concepts of obvious errors in the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), and also stated that the NOIP considers these concepts to be appropriate. Specifically, the NOIP cited Point 4.2 in the Case Law, that for a correction to be made, it must be established that:

it is obvious that an error is in fact present in the document filed with the EPO, the incorrect information having to be objectively recognizable [emphasized in the NOIP’s notice] by the skilled person using common general knowledge.

The NOIP argued that if the patent owner did not notice the error within the two-year patent examination period, let alone for nearly 10 years thereafter, it could hardly be considered “obvious.” In addition, the same error appeared in other applications and patents of the company related to the compound.

While the patent application in question referred to the correct description in the EP patent, the incorrect structural formula consistently appeared throughout the summary, description, and claims of the Vietnamese application itself, and the NOIP further asserted that it had no obligation to consider other documents, referring to Point 4.2.1 of the case law:

On the other hand, documents, even if they were filed together with the European patent application, such as priority documents and the abstract may not be used.

Outlook

The arguments in the NOIP’s refusal notice signal that the NOIP intends to follow the EPO’s practice regarding obvious errors and their corrections (though it is debatable that the EPO would have come to the same conclusion in a similar situation). Historically, however, the NOIP’s practice has not always been consistent, and it is unclear to what extent patent correction will be allowed in the future. To ensure their patent rights in Vietnam, practitioners and applicants would be well advised to review their applications very carefully, and rely only on reputable, experienced IP agents, with the most accurate translation capacity, for patent prosecution, to avoid unexpected consequences.

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