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 13, 2017

Vietnam: Registered Drugs Not Immune from Infringement Charges

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Recent patent infringement cases in Vietnam’s pharmaceutical sector have revealed the ambiguity of competent authorities’ roles in determining whether a patent has been infringed. Such vagueness has caused unexpected delays in legal proceedings.

In a recent suit between a leading international pharmaceutical group and a local generic producer, the court requested the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) to clarify in writing whether the DAV had taken patent issues into account when considering approval of marketing authorization (MA) for the defendant’s pharmaceutical products. In response to the court, the DAV issued a letter confirming, for the very first time, that they have no responsibility by law to examine any IP infringement issues during drug registration.

Can Approved Drugs Still Be Infringing?

In the pharmaceutical sector, alleged patent infringers often defend themselves from the accusations by pointing to their MA registrations. They argue that any pharmaceutical products authorized to the market by the DAV must, by nature, be legitimate, and free from IP infringement issues. Therefore, holders of granted MAs should be released from any infringement liability.

Some infringers even contend that IP holders should instead place the blame on the competent authorities, such as the DAV, who approved the suspected infringing pharmaceutical products for circulation and distribution in the market. They presume that the DAV’s responsibility to carefully review drug registration dossiers prevents any potential IP infringement prior to the market entry of products. As a result, they argue, the DAV must be liable for any patent-infringing drugs on the market.

An examination of the prevailing laws, however, reveals that such arguments are unjustified. The Law on Intellectual Property explicitly requires every individual and organization to respect the intellectual property rights of IP owners. Meanwhile, the independent and separate laws on drug registration contain no provisions stipulating the DAV’s power and role to consider any IP issues with respect to drugs seeking MA registration. Furthermore, under Article 13 of Circular 44/2014/TT-BYT, the law clarifies that drug registrants or registering entities must themselves be responsible for IP-related issues both during the course of registration and after the drug has been granted a MA number.

The DAV Denies Responsibility

Regardless of the clear stipulation by law, the unjustified arguments of putative infringers have raised concerns among the courts in relation to the DAV’s role in the management of drug registration, including IP-related issues. The courts seem to be inclined to side with the defendants and thus continue to seek the DAV’s opinions on patent infringement.

In its letter to the court, the DAV strongly confirmed its independent position regarding IP-related issues during the process of drug registration, and reiterated the laws confirming that the Ministry of Health grants MA numbers for pharmaceutical products based only on the evaluation of their safety, effectiveness, and quality, with no obligation to review IP-related issues. The drug registrants, instead, are responsible for any matters relating to IP rights when the drugs are in circulation. In other words, the DAV has no responsibility by law to examine any IP infringement issues during drug registration. Therefore, drug registration does not render MA holders immune from IP infringement charges.

The DAV also acknowledges that under the law, when there is a judicial decision or final conclusion of the IP authorities on the infringement of IP rights, the DAV only needs to consider whether or not to revoke the MA or suspend the sale of a drug. Previously, such a decision or conclusion was grounds for mandatory revocation, but under the new Law on Pharmacy 2016 and Decree No. 54/2017/ND-CP, the DAV seems to be given more discretion. In a number of cases, the DAV has been reluctant to withdraw an MA even when there has been an infringement conclusion from an authority such as the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology. Thus, there is no clear regime for an IP holder to force the DAV to withdraw and/or cancel an MA, regardless of any decisions on IP infringement from competent authorities.

If the drug registry body has no responsibility to consider IP-related issues during the MA procedures, the courts need to play a proactive role in settling patent disputes to effectively and expeditiously protect the legitimate rights of IPR holders. In the absence of coordination between drug registry authorities and IP enforcement authorities, a drug can be authorized for the market by the DAV if it meets requirements for drug registration, without IP-related issues ever being considered. However, if such drug is later found by the court to infringe others’ IP, it could be banned from circulation by an authority like the court, the MOST Inspectorate, or Customs regardless of the MA.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More