Vietnam’s introduction of a specialised IP court: the road ahead

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Vietnam’s introduction of a specialised IP court: the road ahead

Sponsored by

tillekegibbins.png
Dragon Bridge in Vietnam

After decades of debate, Vietnam has recognised the need to create a court dedicated to intellectual property matters, says Loc Xuan Le of T&G Law Firm LLC (TGVN), the local associate firm of Tilleke & Gibbins

A proposal to establish a specialised Intellectual Property Court (IP Court) in Vietnam has been a topic of significant interest among IP practitioners for the past 20 years. It was thus a major breakthrough when the new Law on the Organisation of People’s Courts was ratified in 2024, which stipulated in Article 4.1(dd) that the Vietnamese court system would include a specialised first-instance IP Court. The new law took effect on January 1 2025, replacing the Law on the Organisation of People’s Courts of 2014.

A groundbreaking law

This breakthrough can be viewed from multiple perspectives. First of all, in terms of organisation, this is the first time, after numerous discussions, that Vietnam has officially recognised the importance of IP and the need to establish a specialised adjudicative body due to the field’s unique nature.

The establishment of a specialised first-instance IP Court is expected to lead to fundamental changes in the practice of developing and applying IP law. While the establishment of IP rights such as trademarks, patents, and plant varieties is managed by administrative agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Office, and the Crop Production Department, which seem unlikely to change their functions and tasks, there could be significant changes in the enforcement of these rights, which has been a persistent issue in Vietnam’s IP law system.

Thus far, in practice, the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam has relied overwhelmingly on administrative measures over civil measures. Civil measures, typically involving court proceedings under which the matter will be submitted to a court for settlement, are not appealing to disputing parties, especially IP rights owners.

The absence of a specialised court has led to many IP cases being handled by judges without any knowledge or experience in this specialised field, resulting in confusion, misconceptions about the nature of the cases, and even incorrect judgments as the judges struggle to navigate unfamiliar territory. This has prolonged the case-handling process by up to eight years in some cases, if the first-instance and appellate levels are involved. In many cases, by the time a judgment is issued, the protection period has already expired, and the rights owners’ expectations for a fair trial process are unmet.

Moreover, without a specialised court, IP cases are handled like ordinary civil or commercial cases, even though they may require swift decisions. For instance, in a hypothetical patent case related to mobile phones (for which Vietnam is a major manufacturing hub), the patent owner/plaintiff might request the court to issue an injunction such as a ban on the production, distribution, or importation of a product line it believes to be infringing. This scenario is entirely plausible, and the economic, legal, and consequential implications of granting or denying such an injunction are significant.

Therefore, having a court with professional judges specialised in this field would be much more convenient, allowing them to become familiar with, and not overwhelmed by, the cases they are assigned to handle, leading to more expedient actions.

Next steps towards a specialised IP court in Vietnam

While the desire is clear, the pace of actual implementation is another matter. In particular, the plan set out in the new Law on the Organisation of People’s Courts to put a specialised first-instance IP Court, and other specialised courts such as administrative and bankruptcy courts, into operation immediately upon the law’s effective date of January 1 2025 has failed to materialise, or is not currently practicable, due to barriers and the need to amend other legal documents before proceeding.

For example, provisions on jurisdiction over case types in the Civil Procedure Code in 2015 – specifically, articles 26.4 and 30.2 – also need corresponding amendments to ensure consistency within the legal system. However, the planning process for passing amendments to the Civil Procedure Code will undoubtedly require considerable preparation time. It is likely that the corresponding amendments to the Civil Procedure Code will not be implemented until 2026. Consequently, the specialised first-instance IP Court may not become operational until 2026 or 2027 at the earliest.

In the meantime, the judiciary should prepare all other necessary conditions – such as personnel, facilities, and organisational structure planning – to avoid any further delays that may be caused by this process in realising the idea of a highly anticipated, and desirable, specialised court.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Arty Rajendra and Gary Moss discuss why ‘thorough and intense’ preparation, plus the odd glass of wine, led to a record FRAND victory for their client
Monday’s coverage includes news of a potentially 'game-changing' trademark development in China and how practitioners are using AI
Managing IP gives a taster of the numbers behind this year’s IP STARS trademark rankings, and looks back at our 2025 award winners
Updates from IP offices, the shifting requirements of in-house counsel, and news of London 2026 were among major talking points on Sunday
Etienne Sanz de Acedo discusses the association’s three-year plan, what he is looking forward to in San Diego, and why London came calling for 2026
Professionals from three organisations reveal what led them to sponsor Brand Action and why doing so can build camaraderie
The results of a UK government consultation on the exhaustion of IP rights and an annual review published by the EPO’s Boards of Appeal were also among the top talking points this week
The decision disregards Perlmutter’s work at the US Copyright Office and comes at a time when strong leadership and expertise are crucial
Sources say the decision to fire Shira Perlmutter raises constitutional concerns and speculate on what the decision could mean for the country’s approach to AI
India has formally liberalised its legal market, allowing foreign firms to open offices in the country and provide advisory services
Gift this article