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

December 22, 2017

New Guidance Released on Class B, C, and D Medical Devices in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) has recently issued a very important notification and new regulations relating to the implementation of Decree No. 36/2017/ND-CP (Decree 36) on medical device management. The key notification was issued under Official Dispatch No. 7165/BYT-TB-CT dated December 14, 2017 (Dispatch 7165). The new implementing guidelines for Decree 36 were issued under Circular No. 46/2017/TT-BYT dated December 15, 2017 (Circular 46). These developments are crucial to the registration regime for medical devices in Vietnam.

Dispatch 7165

While not relating to Class A medical devices (which include, for example bandages, wheelchairs, reusable surgical instruments, medical gloves, etc.), Dispatch 7165 provides specific guidance on Class B, C, and D devices, as well as in vitro diagnostic (IVD) biologicals. Class B medical devices include items such as blood centrifuges, diagnostic ultrasound scanners, and infusion cannulas, while Class C medical devices include items such as diagnostic X-ray equipment, electrosurgical units, and urethral stents. Class D medical devices include items such as absorbable sutures, arterioscopes, implantable infusion pumps, dental implants, etc.

A marketing authorization (MA) license for Class B, C, and D medical devices will only be required from January 1, 2019 onwards. This means that the MA regime for Class B, C, and D medical devices will be delayed for one year from the original date set forth under Decree 36. This delay is likely spurred on due to the imminent delays in registering massive amounts of medical devices that have never been registered before, especially when infrastructure and proper resources need to be bolstered among the registration teams/office of the MOH to handle the huge workload. The early deadlines to register all devices were not practicable and were over-ambitious goals.

From now until January 1, 2019, some specific interim regulations set forth under the new Official Dispatch are as follows:

  • Class B, C, and D medical devices which were included in the enclosed annex of Circular 30/2015/TT-BYT dated October 12, 2015 on promulgating the importation of medical devices (Circular 30) will continue to be governed by the regulations of Circular 30. This means the MOH is allowing these devices to be imported and circulated in Vietnam, provided that these devices have import licenses as stipulated in Circular 30, and have been properly classified as Class B, C, or D medical devices by the authorized organizations.
  • For Class B, C, and D medical devices which are not included in the enclosed annex of Circular 30, the MOH will allow these devices to be imported and circulated in Vietnam, provided that they have been properly classified as Class B, C, or D medical devices by the authorized organizations. For smooth customs clearance, in practice, these devices may also need a letter from the Department of Medical Equipment and Construction (DMEC) under the MOH to confirm that the imported medical devices are not included in the enclosed annex of Circular 30.
  • The importation and circulation of IVD biologicals (e.g., microbiology reagents, histology reagents, etc.) require an MA license (as stipulated in Circular 44/2014/TT-BYT on drug registration) or an import license (as stipulated in Circular No. 47/2010/TT-BYT). IVD biologicals with MA licenses can be imported until the expiry date of their MA licenses. For IVD biologicals with import licenses that expire on December 31, 2017, their import licenses can be extended if the expiry date on their Letter of Authorization (LOA) remains valid after December 31, 2017 and the importer submits a written extension request for the import license to the DMEC, which will then review the request and approve the extension at its discretion.  

Circular 46

Circular 46, which was just released, provides long-awaited implementing guidelines to Decree 36 and will enter into effect on February 1, 2018.

The Circular specifically states that Class C and D medical devices that are put into the human body are exempt from the requirement to submit summaries of clinical testing data and clinical testing research results. These medical devices include (1) medical devices in Annex I of the Circular (e.g., peritoneal dialysis catheters, cannulae, introducers, etc.), and (2) medical devices which are freely sold and have obtained certificates of free sale from a competent body of any of the countries and organizations which are set forth in Annex II of the Circular.

Class C or D IVD medical devices (e.g., HIV blood donor screening equipment, HIV blood diagnostic equipment, plasma bags, etc.) are also exempt from the requirement to submit test results if such medical devices have been freely sold and have obtained certificates of free sale from a competent body of any of the countries and organizations which are included in Annex II of the Circular. Annex II countries include Japan, Canada, the United States, and various European countries.

The Circular also includes a list (i.e., Annex III) of Class B, C, and D medical devices which may be traded like other normal goods, and imposes no requirements on the establishments trading them to declare their eligibility to trade in medical devices.

Additionally, the MOH issued guidance on presenting technical summaries, and requirements and terminology for Vietnamese to English translations for the LOA. A sample LOA is also promulgated under the Circular.

Technical summaries and English LOAs which were signed before the effective date of the Circular (February 1, 2018) will continue to be used; companies are not required to re-prepare these documents.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More