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

June 30, 2025

Vietnam Shifts Some IP Duties to the Provincial Level

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities.

Impact on IP and Technology Transfer

Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following:

  • Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration.
  • Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements.
  • Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights.
  • Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements.
  • Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development.
  • Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities.

Legal Implications

The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications:

  • Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related to procedures that have been delegated to provincial-level PCs under Decree 133. Requests submitted to the IP Office before this date will continue to be processed by the IP Office in accordance with previous regulations.
  • While aimed at streamlining procedures, the shift places significant demands on provincial authorities, requiring a robust pool of qualified IP and technology transfer professionals. This necessitates significant investment in capacity building, training of personnel, and establishment of robust internal procedures to handle the new functions effectively.
  • Despite overall guidance from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), there might be subtle variations in the implementation of Decree 133 across different provinces. Businesses and IP agents will need to be diligent in understanding specific provincial guidelines and practices.

Potential Challenges and Areas for Clarification

  • Alternative option for duplicates of protection titles: In preparation for this transition, on June 3, 2025, the IP Office launched a system for issuing certified electronic copies of applications and registration certificates. Upon approval of a request, an applicant will receive an email containing the application or registration number, a document link, and a lookup code. These electronic documents carry the same legal value as physical copies, providing a more convenient alternative for IP owners—especially amid the transition to local authorities. However, it remains unclear whether these electronic copies can be used for procedures such as assignment or recordal of changes to IP registrations, which could impact how effectively IP owners can navigate the new decentralized system.
  • Coordination between central and local authorities: One of the immediate challenges highlighted by legal practitioners is the need for clear coordination, especially for procedures that span both central and local jurisdictions. Clear coordination mechanisms are essential to avoid administrative overlap and delays.
  • Power of attorney requirements: Clarity is needed on whether previously submitted power of attorney documents to central authorities can be reused for provincial filings or if new originals will be required.
  • Consistency and uniformity: Ensuring consistent application of IP laws and technology transfer regulations across all provinces will be paramount to prevent discrepancies and maintain a level playing field for businesses. The supervisory role of MOST will be critical in this regard.

Temporary Shift for Testing and Adjustment

Decree 133 is valid until March 1, 2027, unless extended or replaced earlier. This timeframe coincides with the restructuring of local administrative units and suggests that the decentralization of IP procedures is being implemented as a pilot phase, allowing time for adjustments based on real-world feedback.

Overall, Decree 133 represents a bold step towards a more decentralized and efficient science and technology administration in Vietnam. While it brings promising prospects for expediting processes and fostering local innovation, successful implementation will rely heavily on the issuance of clear and practical guidelines from MOST, as well as the proactive development of robust administrative mechanisms and human resources at the provincial level.

Businesses and IP rights holders are advised to stay abreast of the forthcoming detailed instructions and adapt their strategies accordingly to navigate this evolving regulatory administrative landscape.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 27, 2025
With the fifth round of negotiations between Thailand and the EU for a free trade agreement (FTA) now complete and the sixth round scheduled for June, both sides appear to be well on the way to meeting the desired Christmas 2025 deadline. The latest discussions were held in Brussels, and Pichai Naripthaphan, Thailand’s commerce minister, announced that the two sides have reached agreement on two chapters: Customs and Trade Facilitation, and Sustainable Food Systems. No details have been released regarding what concessions were made to reach the agreement, but reports suggest that good progress is being made in all remaining chapters. Market access for goods has reportedly become the current focus of negotiations. The first draft of goods and services that will be exempted is expected in early June, which will be welcome news for importers. While the first draft cannot be expected to represent the finalized list, it will at least provide an indication of the goods and services likely to benefit from tariff exemption. Similarly, both sides have begun to share the geographical indications that they wish to be protected, which will be of great interest to producers and manufacturers in Thailand and the EU. This is especially true considering the upcoming amendments to the Geographical Indications Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003) expected in Thailand, as one of the key changes under the prospective amendment is to enable easier registration for geographical indications protected under international agreements. Other updates from the intellectual property (IP) chapter show good progress in relation to copyright and civil and border enforcement of IP rights. Both sides are also continuing to examine possible bridging proposals for unresolved issues. Given the substantial differences in IP laws between Thailand and the EU, how negotiators will bridge this gap remains at the forefront of most
Read More
May 2, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually
Read More
April 25, 2025
Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged:
Read More