Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law Amendments Introduce Procedural Reforms but Maintain Limited Scope

On October 24, during the ongoing Second Session, Vietnam’s National Assembly convened group discussions focusing on three legislative drafts: the Law on the Development of Cultural Industries, the amended Law on Food Safety, and the draft Law amending and supplementing several articles of the Intellectual Property Law. National Assembly Chairman Tran Thanh Man participated in the discussions with Group 2, representing the Ho Chi Minh City Delegation.

National Assembly Deputy Nguyen Vu Trung provided an overall assessment of the Intellectual Property Law amendments, emphasizing that the draft law establishes a favorable legal framework for scientists and businesses. He particularly noted its potential to facilitate the transfer of research outcomes into production and commercial activities.

The draft law introduces several substantive procedural reforms. It eliminates 18 administrative procedures, including those related to registering contracts for industrial property rights transfers, issuing or revoking certificates for inspection organizations and inspector cards, and transferring rights to plant varieties. Additionally, it reduces business conditions for intellectual property inspection services—five for organizations and four for individuals—and permits the transfer of industrial property rights by contract with corresponding amendments recorded on certificates.

Further reforms allow partial transfers of trademark lists to generate separate certificates for recipients. The draft also shortens the publication period for formally valid plant variety applications from 90 to 30 days and reduces the publication timeframe for certain protection certificate decisions from 60 to 30 days.

Despite acknowledging these improvements, Deputy Nguyen Vu Trung criticized the draft law for its narrow reform scope. He pointed out that it lacks comprehensive measures across patent, trademark, and design registration processes. Specifically, the draft does not establish mandatory processing deadlines with penalties for delays, nor does it provide mechanisms for one-time searches, electronic payments, or correction of minor deficiencies. It also omits provisions for expedited examination of applications with urgent commercial needs and fails to include cost-reduction measures for universities, research institutes, and small businesses.

"Eliminating transfer and appraisal procedures is necessary; however, fundamental reforms to the licensing process are still lacking," Deputy Trung stated. He advocated for the inclusion of statutory deadlines or mandatory principles for application processing.

Delegates further recommended that the law protect the confidentiality of transfer agreements by allowing submission of extracts detailing subject matter, scope of rights, duration, parties involved, and rights to request recording, while excluding sensitive information such as pricing, formulas, know-how, or non-disclosure terms.

The discussion also underscored the need for favorable mechanisms supporting research institutes, universities, and businesses. Delegates proposed empowering the Government to regulate benefit-sharing models, publication rights, ownership of state-funded research results, rights to use results for further research, and commercialization procedures. These critical aspects remain unaddressed in the current draft despite their importance for technology transfer potential.

Moreover, the establishment of a unified, searchable rights database was urged. Such a system should interconnect the status of applications, certificates, transfers, suspensions, reinstatements, and disputes. Delegates emphasized that delays in updating this database should not impose risks on citizens or businesses.

Regarding inspection activities, delegates called for clear principles following the removal of business conditions. Deputy Nguyen Vu Trung stressed the necessity of standards ensuring professional competence, independence, methodology, and accountability. He advocated granting competent authorities the right to request supplementary or re-inspections when justified, rather than treating all expert conclusions equally.

The delegates concluded that the objectivity and independence of expert assessments remain vulnerable under the current framework, signaling a need for further legislative refinement to safeguard these processes.

The National Assembly’s ongoing deliberations reflect a cautious approach to intellectual property reform, balancing procedural simplification with calls for more expansive, systemic changes to support innovation and commercialization in Vietnam.