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

February 23, 2017

Vietnam: Improving Pharmaceutical IP Protection

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s IP enforcement system has seen great improvements over the last several years. In particular, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) has handled many complex disputes in the pharmaceutical sector related to patent infringement, unfair competition, and trademark infringement. Rights holders have generally been quite pleased with the decisions reached by MOST, as well as the expert opinions provided in various cases by the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) and the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI), which are often a precursor to a MOST administrative enforcement action. Nevertheless, with a few tweaks when Vietnam amends its Law on Intellectual Property this year, the system can be improved even further to help better protect IP in the pharma sector. Below are a few suggestions for improvement.

Patent linkage: At present, there is no strong or efficient route to have a marketing authorization blocked or withdrawn in the event of patent infringement. Even when the Drug Administration of Vietnam is notified about a drug’s potential infringement, an MA for the drug in question may still be approved. An MA may only be ordered withdrawn after a lengthy administrative or civil suit for patent infringement. In this regard, there needs to be stronger coordination among the IP enforcement and health agencies.

Preliminary injunctions: So far, preliminary injunctions have not been granted in pharmaceutical patent infringement cases, even in a case where the rights holder submitted to the court three decisions/opinions (from MOST, the NOIP, and VIPRI) affirming infringement. The infringer is still being allowed to participate in and win drug tenders at state-owned hospitals, and the rights holder cannot stop the sale despite overwhelming proof that it faces imminent, irreparable damage and will succeed on the merits of the case. Preliminary injunctions should be made available in these situations.

Fast-tracking of invalidation actions: In some cases, such as a case involving agrochemical patents, the court has ruled on patent infringement even though an invalidation action was pending. However, in other cases, the filing of a frivolous invalidation action by the defendant has resulted in a stay being imposed on an administrative or civil action. However, such invalidation actions may take years to resolve, while damages continue to be incurred by the rights holder. Vietnam should adopt systems employed in other countries where invalidation actions heard by the patent office are fast-tracked, and/or a stay is not granted if the invalidation action is not considered to have a high chance of success on its merits.

Damage calculations: In order to effectively deter patent infringement, Vietnam should adopt a system where patent damages can be trebled in the event that the infringer knowingly infringes a patent (such as by continuing to infringe after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, or after an administrative decision finding patent infringement has been issued). Moreover, the burden of proof of damages in IP cases is higher in Vietnam than in most countries. As mentioned, there are several hurdles in patent litigation in Vietnam, and it is therefore inappropriate that damages should be low if a rights holder can successfully overcome these hurdles and has suffered damages.

Specialized IP court: Vietnam would be wise to consider adopting a specialized IP Court. When Thailand established its IP Court, a strong message was sent to investors that the country was focusing on improving IP enforcement, and also helped consolidate the best experts in IP jurisprudence under one court for consistent handling of cases.

Compulsory licensing: Vietnam is considering draft regulations on compulsory licensing. However, the draft regulations are missing several key components, such as allowing the rights holder to take part in the proceedings, and not requiring failed license negotiations as a prerequisite to a compulsory license being granted. Compulsory licensing has not been granted in Thailand since 2007, and has never been granted in Japan; thus, Vietnam should reconsider whether it is truly needed, and in any case needs to ensure that any regulations comply with international commitments.

Parallel imports: Vietnam should consider adopting stricter regulations on parallel imports in the pharmaceutical sector. Pharmaceuticals can be imported from countries with different storage conditions (for example, different climates) and other regulatory requirements, or misleading information on origin, which can result in pharmaceuticals being imported into Vietnam that do not meet quality standards, or which mislead consumers. The Market Management Bureau of Hanoi should be commended for its stance against parallel-imported pharmaceuticals when regulatory violations are involved, as demonstrated in one case in 2016 when it raided a pharmacy, seized the medicines and imposed a fine.

Special import quotas (SIQ): Many IP-infringing pharmaceuticals are imported via fast-tracked special import quotas. There is rarely any public information available on the application or decision to grant the SIQ. As a result, the rights holder cannot take action until the market has already been flooded by the infringing product, thus adding to the damages to the rights holder. Further transparency is needed.

Trademarks incorporating INNs: Vietnam’s trademark registry contains many trademarks that inappropriately incorporate INNs. The registry should adopt a trademark examination system where objections can be raised automatically in certain circumstances involving INNs, and the burden is placed on the applicant to rebut the inference of non-registrability.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2024
Thailand’s Minister of Public Health recently promulgated the Ministerial Notification Re: Category 5 Narcotics Which Are Not Cannabis or Hemp Extract and Whose Consumption is Permitted for Treatment of Disease or for Research Purposes (2024). The notification took effect on April 23, 2024. The substances whose regulatory controls are affected by this new notification are psilocybin mushroom (Psilocybe cubensis (Earle) Singer), opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L. and Papaver bracteatum Lindl.), and other plants in these genera from which opium, opium alkaloids, psilocybin, or psilocin may be derived. As a result of this notification, these substances are now classified as category 5 narcotics that can be applied in medical treatment. Without the implementation of this notification, patients could not access newly developed medicines containing these substances, as Thailand’s Narcotic Code prohibits the possession and use of category 5 narcotics. Nonetheless, this does not mean that psilocybin mushrooms and opium can be used without any conditions. There is still a long process to go through before these substances can be used in medical treatment or clinical studies. Under the new notification, the FDA must first approve any medicinal drug formulation containing any of the above substances, and subsequently, the production must be approved for medical use or research purposes. The importation of medicinal drug formulations containing psilocybin mushrooms or opium is not allowed. This seemingly small regulatory change addresses the previous legal obstacle to the research and development of such medicines. According to the previous regulation, a physician or researcher could apply to the Thai FDA for a license to produce or possess medicines containing the aforementioned narcotics. However, production and consumption are considered different activities, and consuming a narcotic-containing medicine, even if it was produced under a valid license, is prohibited by the Narcotics Code and is punishable by imprisonment,
Read More
June 11, 2024
Advances in biotechnology have enabled the development of a range of new agricultural tools. From DNA sequencing to plant tissue culture and gene editing, these advances are facilitating the development of better crops. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one well-known example of agricultural biotechnology. GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially altered by inserting a piece of foreign DNA. This DNA may be synthetic in origin or sourced from other organisms. Genome editing (also called gene editing or GEd) involves making precise changes to an organism’s genome without the integration of foreign DNA elements. Several approaches to genome editing have been developed. A well-known one is called CRISPR-Cas9, in which scientists make precise “cuts” in the DNA to create a new genetic variation. Unlike with GMOs, this introduces only minor modifications that are indistinguishable from natural mutations, typically by transplanting genes that code desirable traits from one species into another. GEd technology has been recognized and supported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Thirteen FAO-member countries who are also members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) announced their support of the use of GEd technology for commercial uses and consumption at a recent WTO meeting. In addition, over 40 countries around the world, such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, England, Japan, Kenya, the Philippines, Russia, the UK, and the US, have published policies emphasizing that foods free of transgenes (i.e., foods that do not contain genes transferred from external sources) are not GMOs, concluding that GEd plants are as safe as normal plants. In February 2024, the European Parliament approved new genomic techniques (NGTs), or GEd. As a result, plants that are produced using GEd technology are not classified by the EU as GMOs, and the EU
Read More
February 14, 2024
Thailand is preparing to implement new rules on drug importation for clinical studies. The Medicines Regulation Department of Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) first issued the Notification Re. Detailed Requirements for Drug Importation into Thailand for Clinical Studies almost a year ago, and the notification is expected to come into effect on March 1, 2024. Key Provisions The notification aims at enhancing the efficiency of conducting clinical studies while ensuring the protection of human subjects participating in such studies within Thailand. Some of its key provisions include: Definition of Clinical Study. The notification defines a “clinical study” as a study of a medicine involving human subjects, conducted to provide supporting evidence for the registration of a medicinal product in Thailand or other countries, including for additional indications or variations of a registration dossier. Compliance with ICH GCP. Clinical studies conducted in Thailand must adhere to the current edition of the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. Clinical Trial Application. Sponsors are required to submit a clinical trial application along with supporting documents to the Thai FDA for approval before commencing a clinical study. The permit remains valid for five years and is renewable. Supply of Investigational Drugs. Sponsors must obtain investigational drugs from manufacturers compliant with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards as recognized by the Thai FDA. Postapproval Obligations. The secretary-general of the Thai FDA may impose postapproval conditions or order investigators to conduct or suspend certain activities to ensure human subject protection and regulatory compliance. Regulatory Oversight. The Thai FDA is responsible for inspecting and overseeing the regulatory compliance of clinical studies, including during prestudy, ongoing, and poststudy phases. The Thai FDA may also conduct inspections of clinical studies conducted overseas. The Thai FDA
Read More
December 15, 2023
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2023. This guide outlines the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource for planning international business strategy and researching new markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand is available through the button below.
Read More