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

August 10, 2026

Vietnam’s New Drug Registration Regulations to Reduce Administrative Burden

The drug registration process in Vietnam will be simplified, particularly for foreign applicants, following the recent issuance by Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) of a new circular that is expected to reduce administrative hurdles. Circular No. 32/2026/TT-BYT on the registration of drugs and medicinal ingredients (Circular 32) was issued on July 29, 2026, and will take effect on October 1, 2026, replacing Circular No. 12/2025/TT-BYT.

Key provisions of the new circular are discussed below.

Five-Year Data Exclusivity and Five-Month Public Disclosure Framework

Circular 32 updates data protection guidelines by explicitly referencing Article 128 of the amended Intellectual Property Law, which sets out that new drugs supported by clinical trial data submitted for the first time will be granted a five-year data exclusivity period from the date of the initial marketing authorization (MA) approval. Subsequent applications that rely on the originator’s protected data will not be eligible for approval from the date of submission of the originator’s registration dossier until five years after the first MA is granted.

Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulations, the regulatory authority must publicly disclose information on subsequent applications five months before the granting of MA, providing originator companies with an opportunity to exercise and enforce their intellectual property rights.

Simplified Requirements for Foreign Legal Documents

Circular 32 expands the circumstances under which legal documents issued by foreign authorities are exempt from consular legalization and authenticity verification requirements. Specifically, such documents may be exempt if the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) is able to verify their authenticity directly through official electronic means, including written confirmation or email correspondence sent directly to the MOH by the competent foreign authority, or publicly accessible English-language databases maintained by recognized foreign regulatory authorities.

In addition, the new circular permits the submission of electronic notarized copies of legal documents in registration dossiers as an alternative to hard-copy notarized documents.

Detailed Regulations on CEPs

Circular 32 provides more detailed requirements regarding the submission of electronic CEPs (“certification of suitability to the monographs of the European Pharmacopoeia”) within quality dossiers.

  • For CEPs issued prior to September 1, 2023: The CEP must bear the official stamp/confirmation of the finished product manufacturer or applicant, and the CEP authorization section must explicitly list the authorized applicant or manufacturer.
  • For CEPs issued from September 1, 2023, onward: A valid electronic CEP bearing an EDQM (European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare) digital signature, accompanied by an authorization letter must be submitted.

Applicants must also provide the results of a self-search conducted in the EDQM database, including mandatory information such as name of medicinal ingredient, CEP holder information, monograph number, and validity status.

Flexibility and Deferral of CPP Submissions

For new drugs and certain specified cases, applicants may postpone submission of a Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) at the time of initial dossier filing by providing a written justification explaining its absence. However, the CPP must be submitted no later than the second round of dossier supplementation in order for the application to remain eligible for MA approval.

Exemption from Legal Documents for Pharmaceutical Ingredients with Granted MA

Where a finished product uses pharmaceutical ingredients that have already been granted MA in Vietnam, and strictly complies with the approved information (including ingredient name, manufacturer, specifications, and source), applicants are exempt from submitting legal documents demonstrating GMP compliance for ingredient manufacturers.

The applicant only needs to submit two certificates of analysis (COAs) for the ingredient—one issued by the ingredient manufacturer and one issued by the finished product manufacturer.

Detailed Implementation Rules for Post-Approval Variations

Under Circular 32, minor variations requiring notification (MiV-N) may be implemented immediately upon receipt of the notification dossier by the DAV or, at the latest, within 12 months from the date of public disclosure of the variation.

For imported drugs and medicinal ingredients, products may continue to be imported and circulated until their expiry date, provided they were dispatched from the port of export before the mandatory implementation deadline.

New Re-examination Pathway

Upon receiving an official refusal decision for a new registration, renewal, or variation application, applicants will have one month to submit a written explanation requesting reconsideration. If the explanation is accepted by the Advisory Council for granting MA or designated experts, the application may be approved directly without requiring the applicant to prepare and submit a completely new dossier. This new re-examination mechanism is expected to reduce the administrative burden, shorten approval timelines, and improve overall regulatory efficiency.

Next Steps

Pharmaceutical companies should review the new provisions for any potential impacts on current and future registration strategies to ensure timely compliance ahead of the circular’s effective date of October 1, 2026.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 6, 2022
Patent is an essential piece of the amended Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”), which was passed by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, and will take effect on January 1, 2023 (except for the regulation on protection of experimental data for agrochemical products, which will take delayed effect on January 14, 2024). Among the amended and supplemented contents of the Amended IP Law, there are notable patent-related amendments to Article 60 on assessing the novelty of inventions and Article 96 on grounds for invalidating patent protection titles. We discuss these changes below. Secret Prior Art Under Article 60.1 A significant amendment to Clause 1, Article 60 of the Amended IP Law on the novelty of inventions is to broaden the scope under which an invention can be considered to have lost its novelty. For the first time in Vietnam, “secret prior art” –a patent application with an earlier filing date or priority date but published on or after the filing date or priority date of an examined patent application – is introduced as a prior art document. In the diagram above, at the time of filing of the A2 application, secret prior art A1 has been filed but not yet published, making it inaccessible to the public. At this point, only the A1 applicant and the IP Office are aware of the A1 application. Under the current provisions of the 2005 IP Law, as amended in 2009 and 2019, the A1 patent application is not eligible to be a prior art document when assessing the novelty of A2. However, based on the “first-to-file principle” and the principle of priority, the IP Office has still had other approaches to bar the patentability of an A2 patent application if there is such an A1 application. By
June 13, 2022
Thailand’s cannabis cultivation licensing scheme for the country’s transition toward legalization of the plant has now come to an end. The Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) announced in the Government Gazette that from June 9, 2022, “only cannabis extract with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of more than 0.2% by weight will be considered a narcotic.” This means that now anyone can grow, sell, or purchase cannabis seeds, plants, and inflorescence freely in Thailand, and licenses for the cultivation, possession, and distribution of cannabis are no longer required. Neither the number of cannabis plants nor the place of cultivation is restricted. It is thus the beginning of a new chapter for cannabis cultivation in Thailand, with many opining that now is a good time to enter this exciting and growing industry. The journey to this point began in 2019, when Thailand amended its laws on cannabis to allow for treatment for medical purposes, with one of the prerequisite conditions being that the cannabis must be grown in Thailand. The law was further amended to promote commercialization of the cannabis industry, allowing for cannabis to be added to food and beverages, cosmetics, and herbal products. In addition, three traditional cannabis-based formulas were listed in the universal healthcare coverage scheme, which means that almost all Thais have access to traditional cannabis recipes without cost. The successful launch of medical cannabis and its applications, and its viability as an economic industry, have become a national agenda and priority policy of the MOPH. In order to achieve the above outcomes, several legal frameworks and guidelines throughout the product’s lifecycle have been developed. For example, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far granted licenses to cultivate cannabis (also known as a license to manufacture a narcotic) on more than 1,977 acres (around 800 hectares).
April 19, 2022
New technologies and production processes in the food industry have led to novel foods becoming increasingly important to both food manufacturers and the consuming public worldwide. This is very much the case across a number of jurisdictions in Southeast Asia. “Novel foods” refer to new food production processes, foods, and ingredients that have not yet been commonly used for human consumption, so these innovative foods require safety assessments before companies can produce and market them. While rules for these safety assessments are already part of novel food regulations in several other jurisdictions—such as the novel food regulations in the United Kingdom and European Union adopted in 2003, and the major reform of food safety laws in the United States passed in 2011 under the Food Modernization Act—similar rules governing the assessment of novel foods are relatively new or yet to be introduced in many parts of Asia. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the laws and practices that apply to safety assessments and the process of bringing novel foods to market in jurisdictions in the region. This article provides some clarity in this regard by summarizing important practical information on novel foods and the relevant required safety assessments in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.   Indonesia Regulator National Agency for Drug and Food Control (NADFC); frequently referred to as BPOM (Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan). Relevant Measures BPOM Regulation No. 27 Year 2018 concerning Public Service Standards in BPOM; Decision of the Director of Processed Food Standardization No. HK.02.02.51.511.06.21.21 Year 2021 concerning Public Service Standard Directorate Processed Food Standardization Definitions General “food ingredients” are basic fresh or processed ingredients that can be used to produce food; novel food is any food ingredient not listed in BPOM’s positive list of ingredients. Official Fees None   Process and Timeline Before submitting an
March 31, 2022
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing safety measures, many Thai retailers have shifted their sales toward online platforms. Unsurprisingly, counterfeiters have followed suit. The online sale of counterfeit healthcare and other life sciences products (e.g., food, cosmetics, and medical devices) is an area of significant concern, as it is particularly prevalent, damaging, and complex in relation to Thailand’s laws. This article outlines this type of counterfeiting activity in Thailand and explains some important tools brand owners have for fighting it. Counterfeiting Operations Although illicit operations seek to avoid being identified by authorities and brand owners, investigations by law enforcement and Tilleke & Gibbins on behalf of clients have yielded some insights into how these illegitimate sellers typically operate. Often, consumers are first exposed to these counterfeit life sciences products by paid social media advertisements that link to social media accounts set up by sellers impersonating brand owners. This brand impersonation may include unauthorized use of a trademark or trade name as part of the account name, and unauthorized reproduction of official advertisement artwork or product descriptions, taken directly from the official social media account. From the fake social media account, consumers are usually directed to a merchant website that contains consumer reviews, which are entirely fabricated. While not every counterfeiting operation follows this exact blueprint, employing some variation of these methods lends counterfeiting platforms the ability to proliferate through multiple iterations, as well as believability in the eyes of consumers. How Brand Owners Can Take Action Life sciences brand owners often discover that their products have been targeted by counterfeiters when a counterfeit item injures or negatively impacts a consumer. Thinking that the product is genuine, the consumer may then complain to the brand owner, or worse, file a complaint with the authorities. Many times