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

April 25, 2025

Vietnam’s Court Reform: What IP Litigators Need to Know

Managing Intellectual Property

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: Vietnam retains its two-level system of first-instance and appellate review. What is new is where those appeals will go.

The three existing Superior People’s Courts are slated for dissolution. In their place, three appellate chambers will be created under the direct management of the Supreme People’s Court. These new appellate chambers will assume responsibility for second-instance reviews across regions.

In anticipation of their abolition, the Superior People’s Courts have been working to resolve pending appeals—many of which involve IP matters. Unresolved cases will be transferred to the new appellate chambers, raising important questions around judicial continuity, reassignment logistics, and the retention of case-specific expertise.

A Dedicated IP Court on the Horizon

Among the most eagerly awaited reforms is the plan to establish a specialized IP court. Though still in draft form, the proposal envisions certain regional courts—specifically, those located in major economic hubs such as Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City—being designated to handle bankruptcy and IP matters at first instance.

If implemented, this model would centralize IP litigation in a small number of technically equipped, strategically located courts. Appeals would then be heard by the relevant provincial-level court, preserving the two-tier system. Given this change, it will no longer be possible to file IP lawsuits in smaller provinces. Instead, the cases will need to be submitted to specialized IP courts in major cities such as Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Since judges in these cities are more experienced in handling IP matters, it is anticipated that IP disputes will be resolved more efficiently and in a shorter timeframe than before.

Such a model brings Vietnam closer to regional comparators like South Korea’s Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board and Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court. For global rights holders and domestic innovators alike, this would represent a significant step toward consistency, expertise, and judicial predictability in a notoriously fragmented field.

Digital Justice in the Making

Parallel to structural reform, the Vietnamese judiciary is also laying the groundwork for a more digital-first approach. Work is underway to amend relevant procedural laws to accommodate electronic service of process, online payment of court fees, virtual hearings, and other tech-enabled innovations.

These changes could prove transformative, particularly for IP litigants navigating cross-border disputes or managing complex evidentiary submissions. Greater procedural efficiency could reduce bottlenecks and promote faster access to justice.

Transition Turbulence: What to Expect

As with any sweeping reform, the transition period will likely pose complications. There are already reports of delays in court dockets, with some judges hesitating to accept or process new filings, especially in commercial and IP-related cases, until jurisdictional changes are formalized.

If passed in June 2025 as expected, the new judicial structure will begin rolling out by the end of the year. That gives IP practitioners a narrow window to reassess pending cases, anticipate forum shifts, and prepare for procedural realignments.

In short, this is not just a reshuffling of courtrooms; it is a foundational restructuring of Vietnam’s legal landscape. In addition, for IP lawyers, adapting early may prove to be the best litigation strategy of all.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with