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

Angela Oliver shares tips for preparing oral arguments, and reveals her passion for marine biology
The Getty Images v Stability AI case, which will hear untested points of law, is a reminder of the importance of the legal system and the excitement it can generate
Firms explain the IP concerns that can arise amid attempts by brands to show off their ‘Canadianness’ to consumers
Counsel say they will be monitoring issues such as the placement of house marks, and how Mondelēz demonstrates a likelihood of confusion in its dispute with Aldi
The EUIPO expanding its mediation services and a new Riyadh office for Simmons & Simmons were also among the top talking points this week
David Boundy explains why Pierson Ferdinand provides a platform that will allow him to use administrative law to address IP concerns
Developments included an anti-anti-suit injunction being granted for the first time, and the court clarifying that it can adjudicate over alleged infringements that occurred before June 2023
Griffith Hack’s Amanda Stark, one of our ‘Top 250 Women in IP’, explains how peer support from male colleagues is crucial, and reveals why the life sciences sector is thriving
The case, which could offer clarity on the training of AI models within the context of copyright law, will go to trial in the UK next week
CMS IndusLaw co-founder Suneeth Katarki says he plans to hire a patent team in India and argues that IP should play a major role within full-service firms
Gift this article