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

May 23, 2016

Vietnam: Protecting Trade Secrets

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Trade secrets have been protected under Vietnam’s intellectual property regulations and other laws for many years. However, questions as to the actual effectiveness of such legal protection measures continue to vex lawyers and other experts. These questions stem from the laws themselves, as well as how the regulations may be applied in actual legal proceedings.

Trade Secret Protection in the Law

The current legal regulations in Vietnam governing or touching upon the issue of trade secret protection are found scattered throughout a wide range of legislation, such as the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property (Article 4.23), the 2012 Labor Code (Articles 19.1 and 23.2) and the 2004 Law on Competition (Articles 3.10, 39.2, and 41). While this may seem to be comprehensive coverage to an outside observer, some fundamental shortcomings remain within the legal system, as there are no regulations governing the relationship  between these laws.

For example, how will the law balance the right of an employee to freely sign and terminate labor contracts and to work for any employer and at any place not prohibited by law, an important principle stipulated in Article 10.1 of the Labor Code, against non-compete clauses previously agreed to between the employee and the employer, that say that the employee cannot work for a competitor or another company in the same field in Vietnam for a given period of time after concluding the labor contract? In this situation, if the agreement of the two parties becomes “law” and is binding upon the employee, will this agreement implicitly be valid or must it be accompanied by some condition such as only being valid when the employee is given some material benefit from the employer in exchange, commensurate to the amount of time and the geographical region in respect of which they commit not to work for competitors?

Looking at the history of the law in Vietnam, when the Competition Law was originally drafted, many legal experts mentioned the need for some specific provisions governing non-compete agreements in labor relationships, as well as in other legal relationships such as franchising, technology transfer, and licensing, but the lawmakers opted to remain silent on this issue. Thus, the potential legal risks have not yet had a satisfactory solution.

In addition to non-compete clauses in labor contracts, another measure provided in the law (Article 119.1(d) of the Labor Code) that is commonly used to protect trade secrets is specifying the responsibility and obligation of trade secret confidentiality in the internal labor rules of a company. Typically, these regulations will define who can access the information, which documents are considered trade secrets and how they are to be kept and managed, and the sanctions for breaches, the most serious of which is termination. The fact that the internal labor rules must be registered with labor authorities may strengthen the probability of enforcement. However, it will be very interesting to see how the effectiveness of these measures plays out.

Trade Secret Protection in Practice

Unlike IP disputes in other areas such as patent and trademark, disputes related to trade secrets have thus far been very uncommon in Vietnam. To date, we have only seen two cases related to trade secrets that have been heard by the courts, one in 2005 in the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City (Case No. 20/LD-ST dated March 17, 2005) and one in 2010 in the Duc Hoa District Court of Long An Province (Case No. 09/2010/LD-ST dated December 10, 2010).

The first case was in relation to an American company’s firing of an employee for breaching the internal labor rules on confidentiality when the employee sent an email to her sister disclosing information about the employer’s products. The court ruled in the employer’s favor, that the termination was justified, after recognizing the legal validity of the internal labor rules on confidentiality that the employer had issued and registered with the labor authorities.

The second case concerned a Vietnamese company, where an employee had signed a non-compete clause in the form of agreeing not to work for any competitor for a period of one year after ending the labor relationship with the employer. However, the unique aspect of this situation was that the employer had retained the right to regularly update the list of companies that it considered to be its “competitors,” which employees could not go to work for, but the employees did not get any material benefits in return for complying with this clause. Despite this, the court still recognized the legality of this non-competition agreement when it held that this was a purely civil agreement and thus was viewed as the will of both parties.

From the two cases above it can be seen that the courts of Vietnam have had a tendency to uphold measures protecting trade secrets that the parties have agreed to, but there are still some legal risks. In the Labor Code of 2012, the lawmakers stipulated that if there is an agreement on protection of trade secrets, then in addition to agreeing on penalties to compensate for breaches, the confidentiality agreement must take into account the benefits of the employee (Article 23.2 of the Labor Code). This may create room for courts to tend to rule in favor of the employee in more cases.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More