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​ 

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