Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection: A Key Driver for Private Sector Innovation in Vietnam | Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection: A Key Driver for Private Sector Innovation in Vietnam

Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection: A Key Driver for Private Sector Innovation in Vietnam

Founding Partner Le Quang Vinh – Bross & Partners

Introduction

Innovation is the strategic growth pillar of Vietnam’s private sector and digital economy. However, private enterprises—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—are facing persistent obstacles in protecting and commercializing their innovations. If effectively designed and implemented, intellectual property (IP) can become a vital bridge connecting creativity with the marketplace. This article presents the policy paper delivered by lawyer Le Quang Vinh of Bross & Partners at the National Conference on Science and Technology held on July 14, 2025, where he addressed the Minister of Science and Technology directly. Following this event, Mr. Vinh was officially invited by Minister Nguyen Manh Hung to join the Advisory Task Force for the fourth amendment to the 2022 IP Law, which is expected to be submitted to the National Assembly for adoption in October 2025. Structured in three parts, this paper outlines the systemic challenges in IP protection facing Vietnam’s private sector, identifies institutional bottlenecks, and proposes a comprehensive strategic reform agenda from legal, policy, and enforcement perspectives.

Part I – Reality Check: The Gap Between Innovation Aspirations and IP Apathy

1.1. Innovation is accelerating, but IP protection tools are lagging behind

Private enterprises in Vietnam are experiencing a rapid surge in innovation across multiple fields, including product design, software development, high-tech agriculture, and brand building. However, a troubling reality persists: most of these innovations are not adequately protected under the intellectual property (IP) regime. Many businesses hesitate to file for protection due to unclear procedures, high costs, or concerns over disclosing technical secrets. Others may start the process but abandon it midway due to a perceived lack of tangible benefits. As a result, high-value innovations often remain legally unrecognized, exposed to copying and unauthorized use, and unfit for commercialization. This creates a paradox: the more a business innovates, the more vulnerable it becomes without a proper “legal shield” to safeguard its intellectual assets.

1.2. Legal mechanisms remain misaligned with enterprise needs and capacities

The cumulative costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing IP rights—including hiring legal services—remain high relative to the financial capacity of most SMEs. In addition, administrative procedures for oppositions, examinations, and appeals are often lengthy, unpredictable, and largely paper-based. Notably, mechanisms such as IP valuation, registration of IP rights in financial and banking systems, and structured support for IP asset utilization are still uncommon, lack transparency, and are not widely accessible to private enterprises. This leads to a widespread trend of superficial registration—focusing only on domain names or trademarks while overlooking more critical assets like patents and utility solutions. The lack of coordination across legal procedures and the absence of tools to exploit IP rights meaningfully have prevented IP from functioning as a true business asset.

1.3. Ineffective enforcement mechanisms for established rights

Even when an enterprise has been granted protection or has recognized IP rights, enforcing those rights remains highly problematic. Infringements have become increasingly sophisticated, including lookalike packaging, digital content theft, and the unauthorized use of confusingly similar marks. Yet, enforcement tools remain weak. For example, provisional emergency measures are rarely executed in practice; inter-agency coordination on administrative enforcement is poor; and civil litigation is complex and time-consuming, deterring enterprises from pursuing it. Criminal enforcement is rarely applied. As a result, businesses do not feel adequately protected and are discouraged from investing in IP protection. The prevailing mindset - “rights exist on paper but are meaningless in reality” - is burying many innovations before they ever reach the market.

Part II – Consequences: No IP Protection → No Innovation

2.1. Innovation cannot be commercialized: No rights → No assets

Without IP protection, an innovation cannot be licensed, transferred, valued, or used as collateral. This means the idea cannot become a legally recognized asset, resulting in the loss of its entire economic potential. Enterprises are unable to bring their innovations to market in a lawful and secure manner.

The serious consequence is that these innovations remain “locked away,” unable to contribute to growth, productivity, or technological advancement—and eventually, they fade into obscurity.

2.2. Loss of motivation to invest in R&D

The lack of IP protection leads to a loss of confidence among enterprises, who then refrain from investing in research and development or establishing proper IP management systems. This results in a shift toward short-term marketing and sales strategies rather than the development of core products and technologies.

The long-term outcome is a decline in the quality of innovation, weakening the country's overall competitiveness. This creates a vicious cycle: No protection → No investment → No innovation → No development.

2.3. Innovation policies rendered ineffective

Although the government has introduced numerous innovation-promotion policies—such as regulatory sandboxes, tax incentives, and startup support schemes—these measures cannot reach their full potential in the absence of a robust IP protection system. Innovations fail to complete the full cycle from “Idea → Rights acquisition → Enforcement → Commercialization.” As a result, both public and private investment flows become clogged, and the value chain between creativity and business is severed.

Part III – A Comprehensive Strategic Reform Agenda

To address the aforementioned issues and transform IP into a true engine of innovation, Vietnam must adopt a comprehensive set of strategic solutions:

3.1. Shift perceptions of IP: From “legal cost” to “value lever”

Enterprises must recognize that intellectual property is not a legal burden but a strategic value lever—provided it is managed properly. To achieve this shift in perception, several key actions are necessary:

Develop online courses and tailored IP materials specifically for SMEs;
Integrate IP into entrepreneurship, corporate governance, and digital transformation programs;
Include IP as a criterion in startup funding, innovation assessments, and investment readiness evaluations.

This “de-formalization” of IP—moving beyond certificates and registrations—will help businesses treat IP as a real, actionable asset, rather than just a symbolic legal title.

3.2. Strengthening the institutional and cross-sectoral legal framework

a) Coordinated action among ministries and sectors:

Establish data interoperability mechanisms for IP and streamline conflict resolution across rights.
Issue joint inter-ministerial guidelines involving the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST), and Ministry of Agriculture and Environment.
Create a coordinated framework that brings together the Ministry of Justice, MOST, Ministry of Finance, State Bank of Vietnam, domestic insurance companies, the Vietnam Asset Management Company (VAMC), and commercial banks to enable IP rights to be used as collateral for secured lending.

b) Amendments to the IP Law:

Revise Article 213 to clarify its relationship with Article 129, and establish a clear bridge between Article 129 and Articles 225/226 of the Penal Code.
Introduce the principle of “respect for prior-established rights.”
Clarify the legal stance that works created entirely by artificial intelligence (AI) are not eligible for protection, while AI-assisted works may be protected only if there is substantial human authorship.
Insert “ideas” into the opening of Article 15(3) to explicitly affirm the long-standing principle that copyright does not protect mere ideas—a principle that is often dangerously misunderstood in practice.
Add a separate provision or chapter on the commercialization and exploitation of IP rights.

c) Review the relationship between the IP Law and other legal instruments:

Penal Code (Article 225): Expand the scope of infringement to include the unauthorized “making available” of copyrighted or related works to the public (e.g. to combat large-scale illegal streaming of films and sports events).
Civil Procedure Code (Articles 94, 95 & 97): Recognize digital content, e.g. mails, log files, websites, databases, video, source code, and other digital expressions—as admissible evidence, provided they meet criteria for integrity, authenticity, and traceability, in line with e-transaction laws.
Civil Code: Clarify the distinction between pledging and mortgaging IP rights, and affirm that IP rights may serve as collateral.
Conduct a comprehensive review of other relevant legislation, including the Law on Digital Technology Industry, E-Transactions Law, Data Law, Personal Data Protection Law, SME Support Law, and the Law on Science and Technology.

The ultimate goal is to position intellectual property as the legal backbone of Vietnam’s digital economy.

3.3. Establish a patent linkage mechanism for pharmaceuticals

Develop a regulatory system that links patent status with pharmaceutical marketing authorization to:

Prevent the early approval of generic drugs while the relevant patents remain in force;
Require applicants to declare non-infringement in their marketing authorization dossiers;
Enhance transparency and safeguard the interests of patent holders;
Support legitimate pharmaceutical manufacturers.

3.4. Treat IP as a genuine economic asset

To enable IP rights to serve as collateral for secured lending and to become a structural component of capital markets, a comprehensive framework must be built upon four pillars: legal infrastructure, valuation mechanisms, IP guarantee funds, and a secondary IP market. This effort requires the engagement of six key stakeholders: the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Finance, State Bank of Vietnam, national insurers, and the Vietnam Asset Management Company (VAMC)/commercial banks. Key action items include:

Establish a national IP rights exchange platform;
Develop uniform standards for IP valuation, registration, and collateralization;
Leverage expired patents to build an open innovation patent library for SMEs.

3.5. Elevate IP courts into truly independent judicial bodies

The establishment of two dedicated IP courts in Vietnam as of July 2025 marks a significant milestone. However, these courts must operate as independent judicial entities, separate from the existing network of 355 Regional People's Courts.

To ensure effectiveness, the courts should be structured as follows:

Recruit judges with prior experience in adjudicating IP disputes, and—where possible—with technical fluency or scientific training, or judges with prior experience in handling complex and cross-border disputes;
Expand and strengthen judicial training in IP litigation, especially for cases involving foreign elements, digital assets, data, blockchain technologies, AI, and NFTs.

3.6. Strengthen the role of the Supreme People’s Court

As Vietnam’s highest court, the Supreme People’s Court should take a more active role in guiding the application of IP law, particularly by issuing resolutions through the Judicial Council to ensure consistency and predictability across the judiciary — especially in emerging legal domains such as AI, data, and digital content. In addition, the Court should adjudicate important IP cases through cassation and retrial procedures to clarify critical boundaries, including:
• The distinction between fair use and IP infringement;
• The line between infringement and transformative use in the context of AI training and model development.

Conclusion

Intellectual property can no longer be viewed merely as a legal instrument for dispute resolution. It must be elevated into a foundational platform that drives innovation, attracts investment, facilitates capital mobilization, and enables sustainable economic growth. When IP rights are established swiftly, protected effectively, and commercialized intelligently, Vietnam’s private sector will be empowered to serve not just as a participant—but as a strategic engine of national innovation and economic transformation.

Bross & Partners, a Tier 1-ranked intellectual property law firm by Legal 500 Asia Pacific, has extensive experience in strategic IP litigation, cross-border enforcement, and advising on legislative and institutional reform. Please contact:
LinkedIn | Email: vinh@bross.vn | Mobile: +84 903 287 057

| Microsoft Teams: vinh@bross.vn