Enforcement of Patent Rights for Pharmaceuticals in Vietnam

February 27, 2014

Enforcement of Patent Rights for Pharmaceuticals in Vietnam

Informed Counsel

Patents are engines of growth and are critical to the vitality of the pharmaceutical industry. They create the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to maintain their investments to find new and better cures for global health issues, and to improve the health of people around the world. From an economic perspective, patents also give their holders an upper hand over other competitors. For this reason, many generic pharmaceutical companies try to illegally use others’ patented inventions in their own products, in order to gain an unfair advantage and compete with the patentees’ drugs. In this article, we will address the process of enforcing patent rights in the pharmaceutical sector in Vietnam.

Enforcement Options

The overall goal of all pharmaceutical patent holders when carrying out enforcement measures is to force the infringers to cease the infringement, to get the market authorization of the infringing drug withdrawn or revoked, and to ultimately claim compensation for any damages incurred. These objectives can be achieved only if the patentee can select the most appropriate measures and strategies, while understanding that patent enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector in Vietnam is relatively new.

The available enforcement actions against patent infringers include administrative measures, border control measures, and civil litigation. Administrative measures, which are carried out by administrative bodies, not judicial bodies, are the most common, as they are both cost-effective and time-saving. However, only the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology and customs are entitled to handle patent infringement through the administrative route. Border control measures, which, to some extent, are considered to be administrative in nature, are applied by customs at the borders of Vietnam. Civil litigation is also an option, although it takes a high degree of commitment to pursue this route due to the local courts’ lack of IP expertise.

The Role of the Expert Witness

In Vietnam, the role of the expert witness in patent enforcement, especially in the realm of pharmaceuticals, is of great importance. Agencies offering such services, through their expert opinions and conclusions on infringement, provide guidelines for the competent authorities to resolve the case. Despite the opinions of expert witnesses being non-binding, they are almost always followed by enforcement agencies, which often lack experience in such matters. They also help to expedite enforcement actions.

Despite the importance of expert opinions, rights holders do not have many options available to them in terms of requesting assistance from examination agencies or agencies that provide expert advice, as the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) is, for the moment, the only functional agency authorized to provide expert opinions. Though the National Office of Intellectual Property now and then issues expert opinions upon the request of the enforcement bodies, in practice, its main role is to facilitate the procedures for establishing IP rights in Vietnam.

In most cases, to assess the possibility of patent infringement, VIPRI requests a prior physical testing of the putative infringing drugs. In some cases, however, VIPRI can judge the infringement based on the ingredients on the packaging and/or the inserts alone.

Complementary and Preventive Measures

Though some jurisdictions ensure “patent linkage” whereby marketing approval for generic drugs is not granted until the original drug’s patent has expired, there is no such regime in Vietnam. Therefore, parallel to or even before conducting any enforcement measures, patent rights holders in the pharmaceutical sector are advised to undertake certain measures at the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV). Specifically, according to Article 15 of Circular No. 22/2009/TT-BYT, patentees are encouraged to notify the DAV of their patents. Once notified, the DAV will then send a notice to its drug examiners for them to consider the patents in the process of deciding on the marketing authorization of drugs belonging to other applicants.

After the dossiers of drug-related patents have been filed, if there are potential conflicts or potential patent infringements found in any drug registration dossiers, the DAV will require the applicants to clarify the legal status and/or contact the patent owners in order to resolve these conflicts. This process, however, is not mandatory for management agencies and the DAV may nonetheless grant drug market authorization. This is because, in practice, the overriding spirit of Circular No. 22/2009/TT-BYT is that issues that arise in relation to patents are the responsibilities of the parties involved, and the DAV does not play a role in review, arbitration, or adjudication of these disputes. The DAV is bound only to withdraw the market authorization of a medicinal product (if the authorization has been granted) or refuse to issue a market authorization (if the application is in the review process) once a decision confirming the infringement has been issued by the competent patent enforcement authorities, such as the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology, customs authorities, or the court.

At present, Vietnam is actively participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, and one of the agenda items relating to the TPP that has been put on the table is whether or not a pre-review mechanism should be created with respect to patents for medicinal products for which applications for circulation licenses have been filed. The majority opinion in Vietnam, however, is in opposition, due to worries about negative impacts on the time taken for people to get access to a supply of cheap drugs, as well as intellectual property barriers that the Vietnamese government wishes to avoid. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the TPP can live up to the expectations of pharmaceutical companies that are advocating a more effective enforcement mechanism in Vietnam. In any case, pharmaceutical companies should fend for themselves and employ a comprehensive and long-term enforcement strategy to protect their patent rights effectively in Vietnam’s still-emerging patent enforcement regime.

Download Full Article

Related Professionals

Loc Xuan Le

Principal, T&G Law Firm LLC (TGVN)

Vietnam

+84 24 3772 8811 ext. 120

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

August 30, 2024

Indonesian Court Extends Trademark Non-Use Period, Risking Far-Reaching Consequences

As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from

August 30, 2024

Challenges in Applying Criminal Measures to Combat Counterfeits in Vietnam

In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For

August 30, 2024

Developments in IP Enforcement: Tracing the Identity of Online Infringers in Thailand

With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July

August 7, 2024

Landmark Myanmar Competition Commission Decision Targets Deceptive Branding

A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing

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

Industries

Practices

February 27, 2014