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

September 15, 2020

Vietnam: Who Is Responsible When Imported Drugs Infringe Patents?

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Are importers and distributors responsible for patent infringement related to the products they import and distribute? This seemingly simple question has still only been partially answered in Vietnam, when the Superior People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City rendered a judgment on 28 July 2020 sending a case back to the first-instance court for a retrial.

The plaintiff in the case is a multinational pharmaceutical company, the owner of a valid Vietnamese patent protecting a compound used for the treatment of diabetes. The plaintiff had discovered a medicinal product circulating in the Vietnamese market, under a valid marketing authorization granted by the Drug Administration of Vietnam, that contained the active ingredient protected under the patent. This product was manufactured in Pakistan and exclusively imported and distributed by a local Vietnamese company.

The plaintiff decided to initiate a patent infringement lawsuit, but chose to sue only the importer/distributor of the infringing product, not the manufacturer. The strategic decision not to sue the manufacturer was based on factors that could lead to a delay in the resolution of the case, including the manufacturer’s lack of a strong commercial presence in Vietnam, the manufacturing process being carried out in Pakistan, and the procedural complications associated with filing a lawsuit against a foreign entity.

At the first-instance level, the Vietnamese importer/distributor acknowledged that the medicinal product might be patent-infringing and, as soon as the lawsuit started, ceased its import and distribution activities for the product. However, the defendant also held that it was not responsible for the patent infringement because: (i) there was a provision in the import and distribution contract between the defendant and the manufacturer under which the manufacturer took full responsibility for all IP issues; and (ii) as merely an importer and distributor, the defendant should not be responsible for a product it did not itself manufacture.

These arguments were rejected by the plaintiff because, as a general rule, any act of use of a patented invention without the permission of the patent owner is considered an infringement. Further, “use of a patented invention” is clearly defined under Article 124.1 of Vietnam’s IP Law, and includes the acts of import and distribution of patented products. In addition, the manufacturer’s contractual commitment to be responsible for IP issues was only binding on the manufacturer and the defendant, and was meaningless and irrelevant to any third party.

However, the first-instance judgment issued by the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City in July 2019 ruled that the defendant did not commit patent infringement because the plaintiff had not previously sued the manufacturer, and there was no judgment declaring that the drug was manufactured in violation of the invention patent. In other words, the court ruled that it was necessary to first determine that the manufacturer had committed an act of patent infringement before determining whether there was any patent infringement by the distributor/importer. This was a controversial ruling, as it appeared to be a denial of the general principles, understanding, and application of patent law in Vietnam.

The plaintiff immediately appealed to the appellate court, the Superior People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City. At the appellate level, the controversy revolved around the questions of whether an importer/distributor is required to bear responsibility for patent infringement, and whether terms agreed to in a distribution contract are applicable to outside parties. The appellate court, with the desire to clarify the manufacturer’s role, invited a representative of the manufacturer to participate in the case as a person with related rights and obligations. The manufacturer’s representative insisted that the case was not related to them, and refuted their distributor’s arguments.

The appellate court ruled that the case should be sent back to the first-instance court for retrial, pointing out that the court had made serious mistakes in the application of the law. Specifically, the plaintiff has the right to sue whomever it chooses, and the court’s right to adjudicate is limited by the scope of the plaintiff’s petition—the court cannot tell the plaintiff who it should have sued. Additionally, the defendant, as the importer and distributor of the products, must bear independent responsibility for its own business activities. Finally, the court also ruled that the distribution contract between the two parties affected only the two parties themselves, without being binding on any other third parties.

The case now awaits the retrial of the first-instance court. It will be interesting to see how closely the guidance of the appellate court is followed. In principle, the first-instance court is not constrained in any way in how it handles the retrial. Thus, the judgment of the first-instance court will be a test to see whether the courts are unified in their jurisprudence.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
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
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More