How is Vietnam’s IP Law being redesigned?

Introduction

The draft reflects a targeted rather than wholesale reform. It focuses on institutional and procedural bottlenecks: allocation of state-management responsibilities, assignments and licensing of industrial property rights, plant variety protection, and—most notably—the framework for intellectual property expert assessment. Properly implemented, these changes could reduce transaction costs and create a more flexible IP services market. At the same time, lighter ex ante controls make transparency, reliable registers and professional accountability more important.

1. A clearer allocation of state-management functions—but coordination remains essential

The draft places overall state management of intellectual property under the Ministry of Science and Technology, including industrial property and plant variety rights, while the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is responsible for copyright and related rights. This provides a clearer functional division.

The key implementation issue is coordination rather than institutional labels. A digitaleconomy asset or dispute may involve trademarks, designs, software, copyright, data and trade secrets at the same time. Implementing rules should therefore promote interoperable data, coordinated handling and a user-friendly administrative interface.

2. Assignment of industrial property rights: recordal becomes a decisive legal milestone

The draft allows the assignee, or the assignor where it remains the recorded titleholder, to request amendments to information on the protection title. For rights established through registration, an assignment is stated to take effect when the amended title information is recorded by the competent authority.

This creates a public milestone for identifying the right holder. The framework should nevertheless distinguish consistently among when the contract binds the parties, when the assignment takes effect under IP law, and when it may be asserted against third parties. Ambiguity can affect standing, licensing authority, renewals and further dispositions.

3. Licensing: fewer registration formalities, but transparency should not be sacrificed

Under the proposed Article 148, an industrial property licence generally takes effect according to the parties’ agreement. Registration is relevant to legal effect against third parties, except in the case of trademark licences. This is a more transaction-friendly approach.

Separating inter partes validity from registration can reduce delays in technology transactions. Yet third parties still need reliable information for secured transactions, M&A, due diligence and enforcement. A searchable electronic register with timestamps and a visible history of changes is therefore an important enabling condition.

4. Plant variety protection: greater international compatibility and a clearer scope of rights

A substantial part of the draft concerns plant variety rights: DUS examination, use of existing examination results, publication of decisions, refusal grounds, and extension of rights to essentially derived varieties, varieties not clearly distinguishable from the protected variety, and varieties whose production requires repeated use of the protected variety.

The framework may facilitate reliance on examination performed by qualified bodies, including plant variety protection authorities of UPOV members. Technical standards for concepts such as “essentially derived” and “clearly distinguishable” should nevertheless be sufficiently precise to protect breeding investment without unduly restricting subsequent research, breeding and legitimate competition.

5. IP expert assessment: moving from entry controls toward transparency and professional accountability

One of the most significant proposed changes is the redesign of intellectual property expert assessment. The draft describes assessment as the use by individuals or organizations of professional knowledge and expertise to evaluate and reach conclusions on matters relating to IP rights, while judicial expert examination remains governed by the separate law on judicial expertise.

The draft sets core principles: compliance with law and assessment procedures; honesty, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality and timeliness; conclusions confined to professional issues within the requested scope; and legal responsibility for conclusions. Service providers must notify the competent authority of prescribed information within ten working days from commencement of activity or service provision.

This represents a meaningful shift from ex ante entry control toward transparency and ex post accountability. It could broaden the pool of experts, shorten turnaround times and encourage competition on quality. Implementing rules should, however, address competence, conflicts of interest, methodology, record retention, confidentiality, complaint mechanisms and civil liability for negligent professional conclusions.

An expert assessment should not be equated with the ultimate legal determination. It should operate as specialized evidence or professional input for competent authorities and parties, not replace adjudication or an enforcement decision. Credibility should depend on scrutinizable methods, source materials and reasoning—not merely the expert’s title.

6. Transitional provisions: technical details that determine legal certainty

The draft is expected to take effect on 1 March 2027 and contains transitional rules for title amendments, assignment recordals, plant variety rights and IP assessment activities. These provisions matter because changes in legally relevant effective dates may directly affect chains of title, pending transactions and standing in disputes.

Detailed guidance should cover pending applications, contracts already signed but not yet registered or recorded, and assessment services commenced before the new law takes effect, so that procedural reform does not create a temporary gap in rights or conflicting treatment of the same transaction.

7. The critical enabling condition: digital registers and verifiability

Many proposed amendments rely on the same premise: information on ownership, assignments, licences, legal status and assessment service providers must be published quickly, accurately and in a verifiable form. Reform will therefore work best with an integrated digital register, near-real-time updates and a visible history of changes.

The most important advance is not simply the removal of licences or formalities. It is a transition toward a system in which rights and transactions operate on transparent data, clear professional accountability and high verifiability.

Conclusion

The draft points toward lower procedural burdens, clearer transactional effects and a wider space for professional IP services. These are important reforms for an economy seeking faster commercialization of intangible assets.

Simplification becomes genuine reform only when accompanied by three safeguards: transparent and current registers, clear transitional rules, and sufficiently strong standards of professional accountability. If these elements are implemented well, the amendments could improve not only administrative efficiency but also the infrastructure for IP transactions and enforcement in Vietnam./.

Pham Vu Khanh Toan 
Attorney at-law and Registered IP Attorney 
Managing Partner, PHAM & ASSOCIATES

Source note: This commentary is based on the eight-page Draft Law supplied by the user. It discusses draft provisions and should not be read as describing legislation already enacted.