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

July 1, 2020

Vietnam: Patent Infringers Cannot Use Cancellation Requests as a Delay Tactic

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

While Vietnam, like the rest of the world, has been focusing on fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the Vietnamese courts have quietly recorded new milestones in the judgment of patent cases. One of those milestones came on March 12, 2020, in a decision on appeal settlement issued by the Superior People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City against a provincial court’s decision on suspension of a patent case.

Starting from a Simple Case

The circumstances of the case resulting in the Superior Court’s decision were relatively simple. The plaintiff, a U.S.-based multinational drug company, holds a compound patent in the pharmaceutical field. The defendant manufactured medicinal products containing such compound. After sending a warning letter and receiving no cooperation, the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the defendant at the People’s Court of Ben Tre Province in the Mekong Delta, where the defendant is headquartered. The defendant immediately filed a request at the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (the country’s patent-issuing agency) for cancellation of the patent in question, and requested the court to suspend the trial of the case until the IP Office issued a decision on the cancellation.

The defendant’s filing of a cancellation request, and using it as grounds to ask the court to suspend the infringement case, is a tactic that has been widely used in patent disputes in Vietnam in recent years. It is not difficult to see that the practical purpose of this tactic is simply to extend the trial period of the case, making the case “clinically dead” when the proceedings are frozen indefinitely. This is because the process for resolving a request for cancellation depends entirely on the IP Office, which is not subject to any time constraints in correlation with the case accepted by the court. Meanwhile, the defendant can continue to manufacture and profit from patent-infringing products. In a number of cases, the process of resolving the cancellation request ends right at the time the patent expires, so when the judgment is announced, it is greatly reduced in meaning.

Dissatisfied with this situation, the plaintiff, as soon as the People’s Court of Ben Tre Province decided to suspend the case on November 4, 2019, appealed the decision to the higher court in Ho Chi Minh City, requesting the Ben Tre Court to continue hearing the case, independent of the resolution process at the IP Office. It should be noted that only the issuing agency (the IP Office) is authorized to consider canceling a patent in Vietnam, not the court.

The Important Legal Question

Does the lower court have the right (or obligation) to decide to suspend a case until the matter of the patent’s validity has been resolved? The legal consequences relating to the answer to this question are clear.

If the answer is yes, it will create a situation where every time the validity of a patent is considered in a lawsuit, the trial process will no longer be in the hands of the court, but in the hands of the IP Office instead. As a result, the patent infringement lawsuit will be divided into two cases: the case relating to the patent’s validity, to be resolved first, and the case of patent infringement, to be resolved later.

If the answer is no, the court will have the independent right to try the case, as inherently required by law, without waiting for the IP Office’s resolution of the patent validity issue.

A Reasonable Resolution

In the end, the Superior Court issued a response that was like a knot being untied for the plaintiff and other rights holders. According to the Superior Court, the court initially has the right to issue a decision on suspension of a case in order to check with the IP Office about the authenticity of the process of considering the patent’s validity. However, after receiving the IP Office’s response, even if that response is purely a status update or a confirmation that a request for cancellation has been filed, the court may not continue the suspension on the grounds that the validity issue itself remains unresolved. As such, the court has to resume the process and the case will continue to be tried as usual.

Immediately after the decision issued by the Superior Court, the case was transferred to the lower court and the lower court had to make a decision to continue the trial of the case.

It is hoped by practitioners that the positive effect of this decision issued by the Superior People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City will spread to many other provincial and city courts with similar cases.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More