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

April 23, 2019

Vietnam Investment Review: CPTPP Signals Pharma Breakthrough

Vietnam Investment Review (VIR)

The market for ­pharmaceuticals in Vietnam is developing rapidly, in step with the country’s growing and aging population, rising per capita income, and increasing awareness of foreign ­brand-name drugs, which many ­Vietnamese consumers consider to be more reliable than generics and local brands. ­Naturally, Vietnam has ­become an attractive ­investment ­destination for ­foreign pharmaceutical companies eager to ­target new ­customers.

The government is doing its part to encourage this investment, as seen by its participation in international free trade agreements and ongoing legislative reform. A revised Law on Pharmacy was issued in 2016 followed by subsequent guiding legislation, but obstacles to overseas investment remain. One thing is certain: the business environment in the pharmaceutical sector is constantly changing.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a multilateral trade agreement signed by 11 countries on both sides of the Pacific, officially came into force in Vietnam in January. Among its provisions, the CPTPP requires each of its members to have a system of pharmaceutical patent linkage. Prior to granting marketing approval to any generic drug, Vietnam must notify the original drug’s patent holder of the generic drug’s application for approval.

By virtue of such notice, the patent holder would then have adequate time and ­opportunity to seek judicial or administrative proceedings and expeditious remedies, such as preliminary injunctions, for the timely resolution of disputes concerning the validity or ­infringement of an applicable patent.

Instead of the above-mentioned system, Vietnam may ­alternatively adopt a non-judicial regime to preclude the ­issuance of marketing approval to generic drugs based on the available patent-related information. This may come from co-operation between Vietnam’s intellectual property office and the Drug Administration of Vietnam, the marketing applicant, or the ­concerned patent holder.

Within the framework of the CPTPP, Vietnam also reached agreements on marketing approval with some other members such as Japan, New Zealand, and Canada. By means of such agreements, Vietnam has the right to establish conditions, limitations, or exceptions when implementing the obligations set forth under Article 18.53 of the deal.

Changes in the Legislative ­Framework

The government’s Decree No. 54/2017/ND-CP of May 2017, the primary legislation guiding the implementation of the Law on Pharmacy, took effect in July 2017. Subsequently, last year two noteworthy guidance documents were issued for the pharmaceutical sector.

The first was Circular No. 07/2018/TT-BYT of the Ministry of Health (MoH), effective from June 2018, on guidelines for some articles on pharmacy business of the Law on Pharmacy and Decree 54. The other was the government’s Decree No.155/2018/ND-CP of the government, effective in November 2018, amending some regulations related to investment and business conditions under the management of the MoH.

Circular 07 confirms that only drug business establishments are allowed to hire ­medical representatives, also known as drug introducers, to introduce drugs to healthcare professionals. After Decree 54 took effect, a representative ­office cannot hire new medical representatives, as the definition of drug business establishments excludes representative offices.

However, Circular 07 ­allows the representative ­offices to continue employing medical representatives who have valid drug introduction cards until the cards expire. ­Accordingly, several foreign pharmaceutical companies who are operating through representative offices in Vietnam are ­restructuring their operations to comply with the new regulations. Only drug business establishments can issue drug introduction cards to their ­medical representatives. The local department of health is no longer the entity that will issue these cards to the medical representatives.

Though Decree 155 does not create any substantial changes to the rights and ­obligations of a drug business establishment, including drug importers, it creates less regulated, more pro-business conditions by shortening the time or lessening documents required for the issuance of the Certificate of Eligibility for Pharmaceutical Business (CEPB).

For example, technical documents and human ­resources according to the principles of Good Distribution Practice for drugs and drug raw materials are not required in the application dossier, as the requested scope for CEPB does not cover the right to sell drugs and drug raw materials to retailers or medical service establishments.

Furthermore, the statutory timeline for the authority to issue the CEPB is 20 days, instead of 30 days under Decree 54, from the date recorded in the application receipt in cases where physical and technical facilities and human resources have been verified and assessed as conforming to the respective good practice of the business operating area, and onsite assessment at the applicant establishment facility is not required.

Import Licences for Drugs

Decree 155 makes the import licence procedure clearer and simpler. For example, to obtain an import licence for a new drug without a marketing authorisation in Vietnam, Decree 155 no longer requires such drug to have full clinical documents on efficacy and safety as mentioned in Decree 54. This change may give foreign manufacturers quicker access to the Vietnamese market.

Additionally, if such new drugs were previously granted an import licence, there is no need to submit clinical ­documents when requesting a new import licence, unless the drug has undergone major changes. Regarding the quantity of the drug to be imported, Decree 155 uses the business needs of the local importer as a basis, rather than the progress and scope of the targeted ­disease as in Decree 54.

Decree 155 abrogates ­previously strict conditions on drugs for special treatment and allows such drugs to be ­imported more liberally based on the country’s needs. Also, for import licence dossiers in all scenarios, Decree 155 relieves the burdens on trading entities by reducing the documentary requirements.

The import registration dossier must include the drug’s label and package insert which are used in the manufacturing or exporting countries, instead of in the certificate of pharmaceutical product (CPP)-granting country as required in Decree 54. Furthermore, it is required to submit a legalised original label and package insert for parallel import licences only; for other import licences, a copy of the label and package insert can be submitted, provided they are stamped by the manufacturer, the product owner, the ­marketing authorisation holder named on the CPP, or the local importer.

Decree 155 abrogates regulations on amendment and ­­re-issuance of Certification of Drug Information and Certification of Drug Advertisement Contents. The administrative procedures for amending and re-issuing these certifications no longer exist.

The procedure for new ­issuance of such certifications under Decree 54 is unchanged. However, Decree 155 removes the requirement to submit the marketing authorisation or import licence in the applications for the certifications. Furthermore, the CEPB issued by the Ministry of Health is no longer required in the application if the applicant is the pharmaceutical business establishment who owns such CEPB.

Slowly but surely, the Vietnamese pharmaceutical sector appears to be falling in line with international standards and practices. The reduced bureaucratic requirements and improved intellectual property protection are certainly positive signs and may encourage further market entry. However, international pharmaceutical companies looking to do business in Vietnam may still encounter regulations and restrictions that do not exist in other jurisdictions, and would be well advised to seek professional assistance from a legal perspective to ensure strict compliance with the law.

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
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
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
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