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 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
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More