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​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
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 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More