Home Blog

Perspectives on intellectual property management in the 2025 IP Law

By
sblaw
-

The Intellectual Property (IP) Law, as amended in 2025, officially came into effect on April 1, 2026. While previous amendments to the IP Law primarily focused on issues related to the establishment and enforcement of rights to meet practical demands and fulfill international commitments in new-generation FTAs, the 2025 amendment reveals a notable shift in legislative mindset. According to the author, the most significant difference in this Law lies in the fact that intellectual property are no longer viewed merely from the perspective of “rights needing protection,” but have been approached as a type of business asset that needs to be proactively managed, exploited, and commercialized.

 

 

Perspectives on intellectual property management in the 2025 IP Law

 

It is evident that, in the context of the digital economy and where innovation is increasingly becoming the decisive factor in an enterprise’s competitiveness, lawmakers are aiming to establish a legal mechanism that encourages businesses to manage IP in the same way they manage other tangible assets. One of the clearest manifestations of this change is the new regulation in Article 8a regarding the management and exploitation of intellectual property rights, according to which “intellectual property right holders are responsible for establishing a separate portfolio for internal management of rights that do not yet meet the conditions for recognition as assets in accounting records under the provisions of accounting law.” This is a policy-oriented shift rather than a mere technical regulation.

 

When placed within the overall trend of modern corporate governance, this regulation carries a much greater significance. It is clear that lawmakers are sending a distinct message that intellectual property are no longer “invisible” factors only of concern when disputes occur or when registration for protection is needed, but have become a resource that needs to be inventoried, controlled, and exploited systematically.

 

In the past, enterprises often only focused on intellectual property once those assets had their rights established through protection titles such as Trademark Registration Certificates, Design Patents, or Invention Patents. However, in reality, many of an enterprise’s core values lie in assets that have not been “materialized” on accounting books, such as trademarks in use but not yet registered, internal software, customer databases, operational processes, trade secrets, or research and development (R&D) results currently in the completion stage.

 

Nevertheless, in many cases, these assets exist in a fragmented form, lacking a centralized management mechanism and depending on specific departments or individuals within the enterprise. This causes difficulties for businesses in controlling, exploiting, and protecting their assets, especially when disputes, transfers, or investment capital calls arise.

In that context, the regulation on establishing an internal intellectual property rights portfolio can be seen as a step toward encouraging enterprises to build a systematic and continuously updated internal IP inventory system. This is the core value of the new regulation, rather than just a matter of mere administrative procedure.

 

A systematic IP inventory system will allow enterprises to record, classify, and track all the intellectual property they hold. From this foundation, enterprises can evaluate which assets need protection registration, which have the potential for commercialization, and which require continued investment and development to form an IP portfolio with higher commercial value, often referred to as an intellectual property asset portfolio.

 

From a management perspective, it is noteworthy that establishing an IP portfolio does not only serve the objective of legal compliance. Furthermore, it serves as a basis for enterprises to change their view of intellectual property, from only recognizing assets that have been granted protection titles to identifying all internal creative results.

 

Through this systematic “data warehouse,” enterprises can screen potential assets to build a robust intellectual property portfolio, creating an advantage in commercial transactions. This is also an important testament to capacity and reputation, helping enterprises convince investors in fundraising or M&A deals thanks to transparency regarding legal status. Most importantly, this centralized recording system allows enterprises to proactively control risks, from managing protection terms to securing trade secrets and avoiding unintended legal disputes.

 

It can be seen that the regulation on establishing an internal intellectual property rights portfolio is not merely a new legal obligation. Furthermore, it is a sign showing the change in the way modern enterprises create and manage value. As intellectual property increasingly becomes a core factor of competitiveness, building a systematic management system will no longer be an encouraged choice, but will gradually become an inevitable requirement for enterprises in the knowledge economy.

 

 

Do you need detailed advice on procedures for intellectual property protection registration under the new Law?

 

👉 Contact us now for specialized support!

 

 

SBLAW – THE GUARDIAN OF BREAKTHROUGH INVENTIONS “An invention only truly has value when it is protected in the right way and at the right time.”

With a team of excellent experts who have a deep understanding of technology and law, SBLAW is committed to accompanying enterprises in turning creative ideas into sustainable business assets.

 

CONTACT SBLAW INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE:

Hotline: 0904.340.664

Email: info@sblaw.vn

Website: www.sblaw.vn

By: Vu Thi Nhat Thao

       Tran Ha My

To attract high-quality investment, intellectual property is a very important factor!

By
sblaw
-

(THPL) – Lawyer Nguyễn Thanh Hà, Chairman of SBLAW, stated that as Vietnam seeks to attract high-quality investment, particularly in sectors such as technology, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, digital content, and AI, the level of intellectual property protection is an extremely important criterion.

Vietnam’s inclusion by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the “Priority Foreign Country” (PFC) list in the 2026 Special 301 Report has sent a warning signal regarding the current state of intellectual property protection and enforcement.

This move by the United States not only creates significant pressure on the investment and trade environment, but also highlights the urgent need to improve the legal framework, strengthen enforcement measures, and raise awareness of intellectual property rights as Vietnam becomes increasingly integrated into global value chains.

A reporter from Trademark and Law had a discussion with Nguyễn Thanh Hà, Chairman of SBLAW, regarding this issue.)

Recently, Vietnam was warned by the United States Trade Representative regarding intellectual property protection. In your opinion, how does this affect Vietnam, especially businesses and the investment environment?

Nguyễn Thanh Hà: According to the Special 301 Report issued by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Vietnam’s continued placement on the “Watch List” reflects the fact that the international community, particularly foreign businesses, still has concerns about the effectiveness of intellectual property rights enforcement in Vietnam.

This is not the “highest level of warning,” but it is a signal that Vietnam remains among the countries that need to continue making significant improvements to their intellectual property protection and enforcement mechanisms.

The first impact is on Vietnam’s image and investor confidence. At a time when Vietnam aims to attract high-quality investment, especially in sectors such as technology, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, digital content, and AI, the level of intellectual property protection is a highly important criterion.

Foreign investors are often concerned about whether their patents, trademarks, data, and trade secrets will be effectively protected. If infringement remains widespread or enforcement measures lack sufficient deterrence, investors may reconsider transferring technology or establishing R&D centers in Vietnam.

However, from another perspective, Vietnam’s continued inclusion on the Watch List also creates positive pressure for stronger reforms. In reality, over the past several years, Vietnam has made significant progress in improving its legal framework and strengthening enforcement. Therefore, I believe that the international community today views Vietnam not only in terms of its “remaining weaknesses,” but also in terms of its improving trajectory and commitment to international integration in this field.

In recent years, Vietnam has made significant efforts to strengthen intellectual property protection, such as amending the Law on Intellectual Property and intensifying enforcement against violations in the digital environment. What is your assessment of these efforts by Vietnam? Which achievements do you believe are particularly noteworthy?

Nguyễn Thanh Hà: I highly appreciate Vietnam’s efforts over the past few years in improving its intellectual property system. The amendment of the Law on Intellectual Property in 2025 is a very important step toward incorporating international commitments under the CPTPP and EVFTA into domestic law, while also bringing Vietnam’s intellectual property protection standards closer to international practices.

The first noteworthy point is that Vietnam has begun shifting from a “rights registration” mindset to placing greater emphasis on “rights enforcement.” In the past, many businesses were able to register trademarks or patents but faced difficulties when dealing with infringements.

At present, enforcement mechanisms in the digital environment, procedures for requesting the removal of infringing content, as well as coordination among competent authorities, have all shown more positive developments.

Secondly, the strengthened crackdown on counterfeit goods, e-commerce violations, and copyright infringement on digital platforms is particularly remarkable. This is a challenging area due to the rapid spread of violations, the anonymity of infringers, and cross-border elements. However, in recent years, regulatory authorities have become more proactive in inspections and in coordinating with e-commerce platforms and digital service providers to control violations.

In addition, Vietnamese businesses’ awareness of intellectual property has changed significantly. In the past, many enterprises viewed intellectual property merely as a legal procedure, whereas today an increasing number of businesses regard intellectual property as a strategic asset, a competitive tool, and a means of attracting investment. This is a very positive development for Vietnam’s innovation ecosystem.

Recently, the Government has instructed ministries, sectors, and local authorities to focus resources on handling intellectual property violations under the principle of “no forbidden zones, no exceptions.” How do you assess this strong and determined stance by the Government?

Nguyễn Thanh Hà: I believe that Official Dispatch No. 38/CĐ-TTg conveys a very strong message from the Government regarding the tightening of intellectual property rights enforcement and the fight against counterfeit and infringing goods. What is particularly noteworthy is the principle of “no forbidden zones, no exceptions,” because in reality, enforcement efforts in the past have at times been fragmented, inconsistent, or insufficiently decisive in certain localities.

This strong stance is especially necessary in the current context, where intellectual property violations are no longer limited to traditional counterfeit goods but have expanded into the digital environment, livestream sales, cross-border e-commerce, digital copyright infringement, and AI-generated content copying. Without a strict and coordinated approach, such violations will be very difficult to control.

In my view, there are three key areas that require focused attention.

First is the e-commerce environment and digital platforms. These are currently “hotspots” for counterfeit goods, trademark imitation, and copyright infringement. It is necessary to strengthen the legal responsibilities of e-commerce platforms and establish fast-response mechanisms for dealing with repeat-offender online stores.

Second is improving the effectiveness of inter-agency coordination among market surveillance authorities, the police, customs, inspectors, and the courts. At present, many cases are prolonged due to overlapping jurisdiction or the lack of effective data-sharing mechanisms.

Third is the need to strengthen deterrence. Some of the current sanctions are still not proportionate to the profits gained from infringements.

In your opinion, what solutions are needed to comprehensively address the problem of intellectual property infringement?

Nguyễn Thanh Hà: In my opinion, effectively and sustainably addressing intellectual property infringement requires a combination of multiple solutions rather than relying solely on administrative sanctions.

First of all, it is necessary to continue improving enforcement mechanisms, particularly in the digital environment. Regulations on the responsibilities of intermediary platforms, notice-and-takedown mechanisms, handling cross-border infringements, and the use of electronic evidence need to be clearer and more practical.

Second, the enforcement capacity of competent authorities should be strengthened. Intellectual property is a highly specialized field, especially in relation to technological inventions, software, AI, and digital data. Therefore, specialized training should be provided for inspectors, market surveillance forces, investigators, and judges to ensure more consistent and effective enforcement.

Third, it is important to promote civil litigation mechanisms and meaningful compensation for damages. In many countries, businesses are deterred from infringement because of the risk of substantial compensation claims. In Vietnam, however, the actual compensation awarded in practice remains relatively low and therefore lacks sufficient deterrent effect.

Finally, the most important factor is still raising public awareness. If consumers continue to easily accept counterfeit goods, pirated software, or copyright-infringing content, it will be very difficult to address the problem at its root. Intellectual property is not only a legal issue but also a matter of fostering a culture that respects creativity and fair competition within the economy.

Thank you very much!

MAJOR REFORM: Trademark registration in Vietnam to become faster and simpler from 2026

By
sblaw
-

Starting April 1, 2026, the Law on Intellectual Property No. 131/2025/QH15 will officially take effect. This is considered a “breakthrough reform” aimed at significantly reducing waiting times for trademark and patent owners in Vietnam.

What exactly does this change entail, and how will your business benefit? Let’s explore the highlights with SBLAW.

1. The “Bottleneck” of Old Regulations (Pre-April 2026)
Currently, when you file a trademark application, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam) must undergo a mandatory administrative step: Formality Examination.

The Old Process: After checking the application, the Office must draft and issue an official document titled “Decision on Acceptance of Valid Application.”

The Downside: Waiting for this physical document often creates an unnecessary administrative “pause,” prolonging the overall registration timeline even if your application was perfectly prepared from the start.

2. The Breakthrough Change (Post-April 2026)
The most significant reform is: The abolition of the procedure to issue a formal Notification/Decision on the Acceptance of a Valid Application.

Simply put: If your application is correct, the system keeps moving automatically!

The New Mechanism: Instead of waiting for the Office to “sign off” on a validity document, your application will automatically proceed to the next stages (Publication and Substantive Examination).

The Office only intervenes if there are errors: Official notifications will only be issued if your application falls into “invalid” categories, such as:

Formal errors (missing information, incorrect forms, etc.).

The subject matter is ineligible for protection.

The applicant lacks the right to file.

Filing in violation of prescribed methods.

Crucially: Failure to pay the required fees and charges.

3. Practical Benefits for Businesses
✅ Time-Saving: By eliminating the wait for a physical document, applications are processed continuously, shortening the total time to receive a protection certificate.
✅ Reduced Red Tape: Businesses no longer need to manage auxiliary administrative notifications, focusing directly on the final examination results.
✅ International Integration: This process aligns with the standards of developed nations, where transparency and speed are top priorities

💡 Expert Advice from SBLAW Attorneys:
While the new law makes the process “smoother,” if an application is deemed “Invalid” from the outset, you will lose your Priority Date—the most vital factor in trademark disputes.

Therefore, before filing, you should ensure:

Conducting professional trademark searches to avoid ineligible subject matter.

Double-checking all formal requirements and paying all fees/charges at the time of filing.

Want to be among the first businesses to take advantage of this reform wave? Contact SBLAW today for an optimal trademark protection roadmap!

#SBLAW #IPLaw2025 #TrademarkRegistration #AdministrativeReform #VietnamIP #BrandProtection

 

International trademark registration in Laos: SBLaw’s lastest triumph under the Madrid system

By
sblaw
-

The Statement of Grant of Protection under Rule 18ter(2) of the Madrid Common Regulations has just been issued by the Department of Intellectual Property of Laos (DIP) to an SBLAW client. This success is a testament to our deep expertise and “battle-tested” experience in IP law across the ASEAN region.

Key takeaways for businesses:
✅ Comprehensive Protection: The trademark was approved for the entire range of registered goods/services, meeting all local requirements for distinctiveness.
✅ Proactive Defense Strategy: Early registration prevents the risk of intellectual property infringement in neighboring markets.
✅ Resource Optimization: Utilizing the centralized registration mechanism saves businesses a significant portion of their budget compared to traditional national filings.

In the era of integration, brand protection is no longer an option—it is a prerequisite for survival. SBLAW remains committed to partnering with Vietnamese businesses, providing optimal legal solutions to safeguard your creative achievements.

New techonology transfer law (effective from April 1, 2026): Promoting the dissemination of medical and educational technology and breakthrough investment incentives

By
sblaw
-

From April 1, 2026, the new Law on Technology Transfer will officially take effect, bringing strategic changes to promote endogenous capacity and modernize the country’s key sectors. This is considered an important turning point helping businesses access new incentive policies while improving the quality of people’s lives through technology.

  1. Priority for the dissemination of technology serving social welfare One of the brightest highlights of the new Law is the State’s commitment to prioritizing the purchase and dissemination of technology (including both ownership and usage rights) to directly serve the public interest. Specially focused areas include:
  • Medical and Education: Transferring advanced technologies to enhance the quality of healthcare and teaching.
  • Environmental Protection & Disaster Prevention: Applying technology to respond to climate change and epidemics.
  • National Defense and Security: Serving important national projects.

Note: Technology procurement from the state budget must ensure 04 criteria: High utility value, suitable implementation capacity, clear IP rights, and transparent budget utilization.

  1. “Massive” incentive policies for projects with technology transfer To attract high-quality FDI inflows, the State applies strong incentive measures for foreign investment projects involving:
  • Transfer of high-tech and strategic technology into Vietnam.
  • Training of high-quality local human resources.
  • Developing R&D, design, and manufacturing capacity in Vietnam.

Businesses performing these activities will enjoy a special incentive package regarding: Tax (Corporate Income Tax, Import Tax), land lease, credit limits, and other administrative support mechanisms.

  1. Encouraging capital contribution with domestic technology The new Law creates a clear legal corridor for individuals, organizations, and businesses in Vietnam to contribute capital in the form of technology. This technology must be generated from actual R&D and innovation activities. The State will support businesses through:
  • Technology valuation.
  • Establishing legal ownership/usage rights of technology.
  • Optimizing procedures related to intellectual property when converting into capital contributions.
  1. Ending dependence, heading towards “Mastering Technology” The amended Law expands the concept of technology transfer, not just stopping at buying and selling machinery but emphasizing the innovation factor. Enhancing endogenous capacity: Requiring the recipient to be capable of receiving, operating, and most importantly, improving technology. This aims to prevent Vietnam from becoming a “dumping ground” for old technologies or being completely dependent on foreign suppliers. Right to improve: The transferee has the full right to improve and develop the purchased technology to suit production reality, based on the provisions of the Intellectual Property Law.

General Assessment With these new regulations, the 2026 Technology Transfer Law is not only a management tool but also an economic “lever.” Technology enterprises and investors need to proactively review their technology portfolios, prepare appraisal dossiers, and grasp tax incentive frameworks to optimize business operations in the new phase.

Do you need detailed advice on technology transfer procedures or tax incentives under the new Law?

Please contact us immediately for in-depth support!

  • Hotline: 0904.340.664

  • Email: info@sblaw.vn

  • Website: www.sblaw.vn

Trademark registration: New process – according to Amended Law No.131/2025/QH15

By
sblaw
-

The Law amending and supplementing several articles of the Intellectual Property Law No. 131/2025/QH15 will officially take effect on April 1, 2026. One of the most breakthrough changes and powerful administrative reforms regarding industrial property registration applications (including trademark applications) is the abolition of the procedure for issuing a Notice/Decision of Acceptance of a Valid Application.

Below is a detailed analysis and comparison of this change between the old regulations and the new law:

1. Regulations under the Old Law (applicable before April 1, 2026)

According to the 2005 Intellectual Property Law (as amended and supplemented through 2022), the formal examination process for trademark applications requires the state management authority to issue a specific administrative document to confirm the status of the application:

1.1. Regarding the recordal of validity According to Article 109 on the formal examination of industrial property registration applications, Intellectual Property Law 2005 (amended 2022):

“1. Industrial property registration applications shall be formally examined to evaluate their validity.

2. An industrial property registration application shall be considered invalid in the following cases: a) The application does not meet the formal requirements; b) The subject matter stated in the application is not eligible for protection; c) The applicant does not have the right to register, including cases where the right to register belongs to multiple organizations or individuals but one or some of them do not agree to the filing; d) The application is filed in violation of the filing methods prescribed in Article 89 of this Law; đ) The applicant fails to pay fees and charges.

3. For industrial property registration applications falling under the cases specified in Clause 2 of this Article, the state management authority for industrial property rights shall perform the following procedures: a) Notify the intended refusal to accept the valid application, clearly stating the reasons and setting a time limit for the applicant to correct errors or object to the intended refusal; b) Notify the refusal to accept the valid application if the applicant fails to correct errors, corrects errors unsatisfactorily, or fails to provide a grounded objection to the intended refusal specified in Point a of this Clause; …

4. For industrial property registration applications not falling under the cases specified in Clause 2 of this Article… the state management authority for industrial property rights shall issue a notice of acceptance of a valid application…”

In short: If the registration application has no errors and does not fall into the cases considered invalid, the state management authority for industrial property (Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam – NOIP) is obliged to issue a notice of acceptance of a valid application.

 

1.2. Regarding the publication timeline According to Clause 3, Article 110 on the publication of industrial property registration applications, Intellectual Property Law 2005 (amended 2022): “Industrial design registration applications, trademark registration applications, and geographical indication registration applications shall be published within two months from the date the application is accepted as a valid application.”

In short: After the notice of acceptance is issued, the trademark application will be published in the Industrial Property Gazette within two months from the date of acceptance.

2. Regulations under the New Law (applicable from April 1, 2026)

To simplify procedures and accelerate the processing speed, Law No. 131/2025/QH15 has amended and supplemented Clause 4, Article 109 and Clause 3, Article 110 towards automating the recognition of application validity:

 

2.1. Abolition of the Notice of Acceptance and Determination of the Validity Date According to Point b, Clause 34, amending and supplementing Article 109 of the Law:

“b) Abolish Clause 3; amend and supplement Clause 4 and Clause 5; add Clause 6 after Clause 5 as follows: 4. Industrial property registration applications that do not fall under the cases specified in Clause 2 of this Article shall be considered formally valid applications and shall be published according to Article 110 and examined as to substance according to Article 114… The date the application is transferred for publication is the date the application is considered formally valid.“

In short: If an application does not fall under the invalidity cases, it will automatically be considered formally valid and transferred for publication, instead of the NOIP having to spend time drafting, approving, and issuing a Notice of Acceptance as before.

 

2.2. Shortened Publication Timeline According to Clause 35, amending Clause 3, Article 110: “Industrial design, trademark, and geographical indication registration applications shall be published within one month from the date the application is considered valid.”

In short: The publication time for trademark, industrial design, and geographical indication applications is shortened to only one month from the date the application is considered formally valid.

 

2.3. Disclosure of Trademark Applications According to Clause 1a, Article 110 of the (Amended) Intellectual Property Law: “Trademark registration applications shall be disclosed immediately after being received.”

Immediately after the state management authority receives the dossier, information about that trademark application will be instantly disclosed to the public, even before the application undergoes formal examination or is accepted as valid.

This regulation helps increase transparency in the market from a very early stage. Instead of waiting for a month or more for the application to pass the formal examination before being published, consumers, competitors, and other IP right holders can immediately identify which trademarks have just been filed. This allows parties to be more proactive in monitoring, avoiding duplicate filings, or promptly preparing third-party opinions and oppositions if infringements are detected.

 

3. Significance and Impact of the Changes

The shift from a “manual examination and notice issuance” mechanism to “default validity if no issues and transfer for publication” brings about significant positive impacts:

Firstly, reducing the administrative burden on the State: With tens of thousands of trademark applications annually, abolishing the process of printing, signing, and mailing paper Notices of Acceptance helps the NOIP save a significant amount of time, manpower, and material costs.

Secondly, shortening the waiting time for applicants: Under the old law, applicants had to wait to receive the validity notice and then wait up to another 2 months for publication. With the new law, the publication time is reduced to a maximum of 1 month from the date of validity. This allows the process to move to the substantive examination stage significantly faster.

Thirdly, transparency and digitalization: The regulation “the date of transfer for publication is the date of validity” creates a clear, objective milestone on the electronic system, aligning with the State’s orientation to promote digital transformation in intellectual property activities.

In conclusion: From April 1, 2026, the trademark application process in Vietnam will become much more flexible, streamlined, and rapid, reflecting the efforts in administrative reform and providing maximum support for businesses and individuals in establishing and protecting their intellectual property rights.

The 2025 Intellectual Property Law: A Strategic Pivot From “Protection” to “Commercialization”

By
sblaw
-

Officially effective from April 1st, the 2025 Intellectual Property (IP) Law marks a radical transformation in legislative and regulatory mindset. From a legal and business perspective, this is not merely a change in terminology, but a strategic lever shifting the focus from conventional “rights protection” to the “capitalization” and “commercialization” of intellectual assets.

For businesses, the new IP Law opens up a new playing field with practical financial opportunities, while simultaneously imposing stricter requirements for risk management.

  1. Intellectual Assets: No Longer Just for Defense, but Business “Capital”

The most prominent highlight of the 2025 IP Law is its strong push to legalize and facilitate the process of turning ideas into cash flow. Intellectual property must now be recognized as a core corporate asset.

  • Valuation and Accounting: The new regulations establish a clear statutory framework (tasking the Government with providing detailed guidelines on valuation standards and disclosures) empowering businesses to confidently incorporate IP assets into their financial statements.
  • Capital Mobilization: Patents, software, digital copyrights, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) can now be legally utilized as collateral for bank loans or as capital contributions for investment partnerships.

This presents a golden opportunity for tech startups and innovative enterprises to significantly boost their company valuations through intangible assets.

  1. A Strategic Competitive Tool for Businesses

The new law officially positions intellectual property as a strategic competitive tool at both the corporate and national levels. To leverage this, businesses must establish methodical internal IP management processes immediately. Owning robust patents and strongly protected trademarks not only helps capture market share but also erects formidable legal barriers against competitors.

  1. Ironclad Enforcement: Intellectual Theft Equated to Physical Theft

Alongside granting broader commercial rights, the 2025 Law significantly amplifies the “weight” of enforcement measures:

  • Expanded Court Authority: The courts will now play a more proactive and decisive role in resolving complex IP disputes.
  • Deterrent Sanctions: IP infringement is now viewed by the legal system with the same severity as the theft of physical property in the real world.
  • Shifting to Cyberspace: Transitioning enforcement activities to the digital environment is identified as a breakthrough solution, enabling the swift handling of violations across e-commerce platforms and social media networks.
  1. Eliminating Administrative “Bottlenecks”

To encourage businesses to register and establish their rights, the 2025 Law aggressively cuts down on unnecessary administrative hurdles.

  • Standardized Dossiers: The application process has been redesigned to be more transparent and user-friendly for applicants.
  • Comprehensive Digitization: There is a strong push for online submission and processing, moving toward the goal of a 100% digitized registration workflow in the near future, which will save businesses considerable time and financial resources.

Legal Expert Advice

As legal advisors partnering with enterprises, we recognize the 2025 Intellectual Property Law as a massive leap forward that delivers a dual benefit: maximizing corporate value while thoroughly protecting the fruits of innovation.

However, to translate “legislation” into a “competitive advantage,” businesses must proactively take the following steps:

  1. Conduct an IP Audit of all existing intellectual assets within the company.
  2. Develop a valuation and commercialization strategy for high-potential assets (especially in the realms of digital technology and AI).
  3. Update compliance procedures to mitigate the risk of infringing on third-party IP, keeping in mind that punitive sanctions have become exceptionally strict.

Early and methodical preparation today, guided by legal experts, will empower your business to confidently seize new opportunities and take the lead in the knowledge economy.

SBLAW Successfully Registers Trademark in Japan for Khang My DGG JSC

By
sblaw
-

SBLAW is pleased to announce the successful completion of trademark registration procedures in Japan for our client, Khang My DGG Joint Stock Company. This achievement marks a significant milestone, reaffirming the prestige and legal standing of a Vietnamese brand in the international market.

 

1. Conquering One of Asia’s Most Stringent Intellectual Property Systems

 

The trademark registration certificate for Khang My DGG was officially granted by the Japan Patent Office (JPO)—an intellectual property authority renowned for its rigorous examination standards and strict requirements regarding legal documentation and brand uniqueness.

 

Successfully securing protection for Cosmetics and Pharmaceutical Preparations in Japan is more than just a legal formality. It serves as a testament to the quality and meticulous preparation of Vietnamese enterprises as they venture into major global markets.

 

 

2. Strategic Benefits of Trademark Protection in Japan

 

In an era of rapid globalization, registering trademarks in key markets is a vital survival step for protecting intellectual property assets. Obtaining protection in Japan provides Khang My DGG with several competitive advantages:

 

Establishing Legal Ownership: Ensuring the brand is fully protected under Japanese law, eliminating risks of legal disputes over ownership.

 

Preventing Infringement: Providing a solid legal basis to combat counterfeiting, brand imitation, or trademark squatting in the local market.

 

Expanding Distribution Networks: Building trust with Japanese retailers and distributors, making the export process smoother and more credible.

 

Enhancing Brand Value: A trademark protected in Japan carries significant prestige in the eyes of international consumers and partners.

 

3. SBLAW – Your Trusted Partner in Going Global

 

SBLAW is proud to have served as the consultant and legal representative for Khang My DGG throughout this journey. With a team of highly experienced lawyers and IP experts, SBLAW is committed to supporting Vietnamese businesses in:

 

Strategic consultancy for trademark protection in international markets (Japan, USA, EU, China, Southeast Asia, etc.).

 

Trademark searches and assessments of registrability prior to filing.

 

Monitoring and responding to office actions or objections from foreign trademark offices.

 

CONSULTANCY FOR OVERSEAS TRADEMARK PROTECTION

Whether you wish to register international trademarks via the Madrid System or through direct filing in specific countries, please contact SBLAW for professional and specialized assistance:

 

Hotline: (+84) 904 340 664

 

Email: info@sblaw.vn

 

Website: www.sblaw.vn

 

Addresses:

Hanoi: 18th Floor, Center Building, No. 1 Nguyen Huy Tuong, Thanh Xuân Dist.

 

HCMC: 6th Floor, PDD Building, No.162 Pasteur Street, Ben Nghe Ward, District 1, HCM City

 

SBLAW – Empowering Vietnamese Brands to Reach the World!

Riyadh Design Law Treaty: A Global Turning Point in Simplifying Industrial Design Protection

By
sblaw
-

On November 22, 2024, in Riyadh, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) officially adopted the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (RDLT). This is a historical milestone aimed at establishing common standards for the application and management of industrial designs, helping designers protect their work internationally more easily, quickly, and cost-effectively. The details of the RDLT are assessed as follows:

  1. Core Content of the RDLT

The Riyadh Treaty (full English text available at DLT/DC/26) focuses on eliminating cumbersome administrative barriers through specific regulations:

  • Harmonizing Registration Dossiers: The RDLT clearly defines the maximum information an intellectual property office can require, including name, address, representative, and a representation of the design.
  • Flexibility in Forms of Representation: Applicants can use drawings, photographs, or other visual representations admitted by the Office.
  • Filing Date Regulations: It establishes minimum requirements to be accorded a filing date to protect priority rights consistently.
  • Grace Period: The RDLT allows creators to disclose their design within 12 months preceding the filing date (or priority date) without losing its novelty or originality. Currently, Vietnam stipulates a grace period of 06 months from the date the design is disclosed until the filing date under Article 65.4 of the Law on Intellectual Property. Thus, the RDLT provides double the protection period compared to current Vietnamese law, giving designers more time to test the market or seek investors before formal registration.
  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge: A notable new feature is that Contracting Parties may require applicants to provide information regarding traditional knowledge or traditional cultural expressions relevant to the design to preserve indigenous values.
  • Prioritizing Electronic Systems: The Treaty encourages countries to build online filing systems and digital data exchange, helping to minimize travel time for in-person filing and document receipt times.
  1. Outstanding Benefits for Stakeholders

2.1. For Designers and Businesses:

  • Cost Savings: Standardizing international forms helps individuals and organizations avoid struggling with unique and complex regulations in each country.
  • Safety when Market Testing: Thanks to the 12-month grace period, individuals/organizations can introduce products to the public to gauge customer reactions before deciding to invest in formal protection costs.
  • Flexible Rights Restoration Mechanisms: Provisions for time limit extensions and the reinstatement of rights help applicants avoid losing ownership due to minor errors or unintentional delays.
  • Business Confidentiality: The RDLT allows for the maintenance of a design as unpublished for a period (minimum 6 months from the filing date), helping entities keep designs secret until the product is launched.

 

2.2. For Developing Countries:

WIPO commits to supporting developing and least developed countries (LDCs) in building legal frameworks, training human resources, and developing technological infrastructure to implement the Treaty. Access to WIPO’s digital libraries helps countries enhance their intellectual property management capacity, which is particularly beneficial and consistent with Vietnam’s digitalization policy in the new era.

  1. Implementation Roadmap and Vietnam’s Position

As of March 2026, according to the WIPO Lex database, many countries have participated in the signing, but none have yet officially ratified the Treaty. The Treaty will officially enter into force three months after 15 states or intergovernmental organizations have deposited their instruments of ratification or accession.

Currently, Vietnam is not yet on the list of RDLT signatories. However, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (Ministry of Science and Technology) is proactively coordinating with WIPO to:

  • Standardize databases and improve examination capacity.
  • Promote digital transformation in the management of design applications.
  • Research and assess impacts to propose an accession roadmap consistent with the National Intellectual Property Strategy through 2030.

Joining the RDLT in the future will be an important step in helping Vietnamese brands confidently reach the international stage with a simpler and safer design protection process.

Reference Source:

[1] Diplomatic Conference to Conclude and Adopt a Design Law Treaty (DLT), WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/dlt_dc/dlt_dc_26.pdf.

[2] Riyadh Design Law Treaty, United States Patent and Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/industrial-design-policy/riyadh-design-law-treaty.

[3] WIPOLEX, https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=C&treaty_id=19852.

[4] Hiệp ước Luật Kiểu dáng công nghiệp Riyadh: Bước tiến trong bảo hộ thiết kế toàn cầu, Ministry of Sience and Technology, https://mst.gov.vn/hiep-uoc-luat-kieu-dang-cong-nghiep-riyadh-buoc-tien-trong-bao-ho-thiet-ke-toan-cau-197251011210649487.htm.

VIETNAM – NEW DIRECTIVE ON STRENGTHENING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

By
sblaw
-

On January 30, 2026, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh signed Directive 02/CT-TTg on strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights. In the context of the digital economy and deep integration, this document is seen as a decisive step to overcome current shortcomings in enforcement.

Current situation

The directive clearly acknowledges that, despite positive developments, intellectual property rights infringement remains complex, particularly in e-commerce and digital platforms. Counterfeit goods, trademark infringement, copyright violations, and the unauthorized copying and distribution of content cause significant damage to businesses and consumers, and negatively impact the national image.

The causes identified are quite comprehensive: the law has not kept pace with technological realities; the authority to impose penalties is limited; technical tools for detecting violations do not meet requirements; inter-agency coordination is lacking; and the compliance awareness of some organizations and individuals remains low. These are systemic “bottlenecks” that require a comprehensive solution rather than handling individual cases separately.

A new approach: “6 clear points” and personal responsibility.

The key point of the Directive is the “six clear principles”: clear person, clear task, clear time, clear responsibility, clear product, and clear authority. In particular, the Chairpersons of People’s Committees at all levels must bear responsibility if prolonged intellectual property infringement occurs within their jurisdiction.

This approach represents a shift from a “joint coordination” mechanism to one that emphasizes specific responsibilities. When responsibilities are individualized, the pressure to enforce them becomes clearer, while also reducing the tendency for agencies to pass the buck.

Improve legislation and increase penalties.

The directive assigns the task of researching and revising regulations on administrative penalties, expanding the scope of handling to include counterfeit goods bearing trademarks and geographical indications; and simultaneously proposing amendments to the Penal Code to broaden the elements of the crime and increase the level of criminal penalties for acts infringing intellectual property rights.

Given that current sanctions are not sufficiently deterrent, especially in the online environment, strengthening administrative and criminal penalties is expected to overcome the “punishment for continued operation” phenomenon and create a healthier competitive environment.

Applying technology and building a national database.

One notable development is the plan to build a national database on intellectual property rights enforcement by 2026, combining artificial intelligence, blockchain, and other technological solutions to detect, trace, and protect rights in the digital environment.

If implemented effectively, this database will help overcome the dispersion of information among forces such as the police, market management, customs, and courts, while increasing transparency and supporting management decision-making.

Inter-sectoral coordination and international cooperation

The directive calls for the coordinated participation of multiple ministries and agencies, from the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of National Defense to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education and Training, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This affirms that the enforcement of intellectual property rights is an interdisciplinary task, linked to market management, anti-smuggling efforts, awareness education, and international cooperation.

Expectations and challenges

Directive 02/CT-TTg sets out a relatively comprehensive framework for action. However, the biggest challenge remains securing resources, enhancing professional capacity, and maintaining commitment to implementation in the long term.

In a context where innovation is the driving force of growth, protecting intellectual property is not only a requirement to comply with international commitments but also a condition for developing a domestic innovation ecosystem. The remaining issue lies in the effectiveness of its implementation in practice.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AMENDMENT 2025: FROM PROCEDURAL REFORM TO REPOSITING INTELLECTUAL ASSETS IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY

By
sblaw
-

On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly passed the Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Intellectual Property, which will take effect from April 1, 2026.

From a policy perspective, this is not just a technical adjustment but the next step in the restructuring process of the intellectual property law system along three main axes:

  1. Streamline procedures, expedite the establishment of rights.
  2. Strengthening enforcement, especially in the digital environment.
  3. Repositioning intellectual property rights as a genuine economic asset.

These changes clearly reflect the direction: to make intellectual property a genuine, functioning component of the economy, rather than merely a formal protection mechanism.

I. Procedure reform: from “record management” to “rights administration”

The most noticeable benefit is the significant reduction in application processing times.

  • Patent examination period: 12 months (instead of 18 months)
  • Industrial design and trademark: 5 months
  • The time limit for requesting patent examination has been reduced from 42 to 36 months.

At the same time, trademark procedures were simplified by publishing them immediately after valid acceptance and eliminating the intermediate step of notifying acceptance/rejection of formal examination.

In terms of policy, this is a shift in thinking:

The intellectual property system no longer focuses on “file control,” but on “facilitating early establishment of rights.”

In the context of innovative businesses operating with short product lifecycles, early patent registration is crucial for their ability to raise capital, secure contracts, and compete in the market.

However, the question arises: is the assessment capacity sufficient to meet the shortened timeframe while still ensuring the quality of administrative decisions? Without accompanying personnel reforms and process digitalization, shortening the timeframe may remain just a goal on paper.

II. Enforcing Rights: Strengthening Accountability in the Digital Environment

The 2025 amendments to the law clearly demonstrate a stance against the current state of rights violations in cyberspace.

For the first time, “owners/operators of digital platforms” are recognized as entities with legal responsibility in protecting intellectual property rights.

This is a crucial shift:

From a passive “notify-remove” model to a more proactive and responsible platform model.

In parallel, the law adds civil and temporary emergency measures specifically applicable to the digital environment: removing, hiding, and disabling access to content, accounts, websites, and applications.

From an enforcement perspective, this is a necessary tool. However, the line between protecting rights and the risk of over-enforcement is also an issue that needs careful guidance to avoid impacting freedom of business and access to information.

Raising the compensation amount to 1 billion VND and changing the method of calculating emotional distress based on the plaintiff’s income also reflects a trend towards increased deterrence and closer alignment with practical dispute resolution.

III. Adapting to Artificial Intelligence: A First, but Cautious, Step

For the first time, the law officially addresses artificial intelligence (AI).

Two directions have been established:

  1. AI is not recognized as the author of inventions or industrial designs – intellectual property rights remain tied to humans.
  2. Allow the use of legally published data to train AI, provided it does not unreasonably prejudice rights holders.

This regulation raises several policy questions:

  • What constitutes “unreasonable harm”?
  • Does this apply to input data or output products?
  • Who bears the burden of proof?

It appears that lawmakers have chosen a cautious approach: opening the door to research and innovation, but not yet delving into the legal framework for AI-powered products.

Therefore, the guiding decree will play a decisive role in shaping AI policy in Vietnam.

IV. Adjusting the protection structure: moving closer to international practices.

The amended law has been expanded:

  • Partial design protection
  • Protection of intangible design (user interface, graphic images)
  • Apply anti-duplication principles to both trademarks and designs.

These changes reflect a trend toward aligning with international practices and meeting the demands of the digital economy, where value lies not only in tangible products but also in design and experience.

Notably, the tightening of protection for the national name “Vietnam” reflects a clear policy stance: the national name is a public asset and cannot easily become a private monopoly.

V. Copyright: Clarifying boundaries and reducing conflicts

The supplementary law clearly excludes: ideas, slogans, and titles of works (considered independently) are not eligible for protection.

This is a necessary step to curb the practice of overly defensive registration of elements that lack sufficient originality.

Expanding the concept of “recording producer” to include the initiating and responsible entity also reflects an approach based on investment and risk control, rather than solely on purely technical behavior.

VI. Repositioning Intellectual Property Rights as an Economic Asset

Perhaps the most fundamental change is the addition of a provision recognizing intellectual property rights as a class of assets that can:

  • Valuation
  • Mortgage
  • Capital contribution
  • Used as collateral

At the policy level, this is an important statement:

Intellectual property is not just for protection, but also for exploitation.

However, its practical effectiveness will depend on the system of guidelines for valuation, accounting, and registration of secured transactions for intangible assets. Without a synchronized technical mechanism, this regulation may remain merely a general principle.

Conclusion: Reforms are in-depth, but the challenge lies in implementation.

The revised Intellectual Property Law of 2025 reveals three major trends:

  • Faster procedures
  • Stricter enforcement
  • Policies for adapting to the digital economy and AI.

However, like all legal reforms, success lies not in the wording but in the implementation.

The period from now until the law takes effect is a crucial time for businesses:

  • Review of the intellectual property asset portfolio
  • Consider the registration and exploitation strategy.
  • Assessing the risks associated with AI and the digital environment.
  • Prepare for the possibility of using intellectual property rights as collateral.

If implemented consistently, the 2025 amendments to the law could become a turning point, bringing Vietnam’s intellectual property system closer to a model of “intellectual property governance” instead of just “application management”.

If you have any questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact us. The intellectual property legal team at SB LAW is always ready to assist you.

Contact information:

Website: https://sblaw.vn/

Hotline: (+84) 904 340 664

Email: ha.nguyen@sblaw.vn

 

By Dao Thu Trang

Head of Patent Department

 

SBLAW SUCCESSFULLY SECURES INDUSTRIAL DESIGN PROTECTION FOR HUNG HOA FURNITURE AND AESTHETIC EQUIPMENT COMPANY LIMITED’S ADJUSTABLE CHAIR FRAME

By
sblaw
-

In today’s increasingly competitive aesthetic equipment market, asserting intellectual property (IP) rights over exclusive designs is a strategic move to protect creative achievements and maintain a business edge.

SBLAW is proud to have successfully assisted Hung Hoa Furniture and Aesthetic Equipment Company Limited in securing Industrial Design protection for their innovative Adjustable Chair Frame.

A Breakthrough in Aesthetic Equipment Design

The adjustable chair frame by Hung Hoa Co., Ltd not only meets superior functional requirements for the beauty industry but also features modern, sophisticated design aesthetics. Successful protection of this design enables the business to:

  • Exercise Exclusive Rights: Prevent competitors from copying or counterfeiting the product’s appearance.
  • Enhance Brand Value: Confirm Hung Hoa’s professionalism and prestige in the spa and aesthetic equipment market.
  • Establish a Solid Legal Foundation: Provide the necessary legal tools to handle any intellectual property infringements.

The Role of SBLAW in Execution

SBLAW’s team of attorneys and IP experts provided direct consultancy and managed a rigorous process to ensure optimal benefits for the client, including:

  1. Search & Assessment: Analyzing the design’s registrability compared to existing models on the market.
  2. Dossier Completion: Preparing standardized technical drawings/photographs and drafting descriptions that highlight the novelty and creativity of the chair frame.
  3. Monitoring & Response: Representing the business before the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IPVN) to handle any deficiencies or oppositions to obtain the patent in a timely manner.

Elevating Business Value with SBLAW’s IP Services

The successful protection of the Hung Hoa chair frame adds to SBLAW’s long list of achievements in safeguarding IP assets across various industries (including Hon Rom fish sauce, mobile phones, lighting equipment, etc.).

We believe a creative idea only truly becomes an asset when recognized by law. SBLAW’s Intellectual Property services provide comprehensive solutions, including:

  • Consultancy & Registration: Trademarks (Logos), Industrial Designs, Patents, and Copyrights.
  • Renewal & Maintenance: Managing the lifecycle of protection titles.
  • Enforcement: Representing clients in dispute resolution and IP rights enforcement both in Vietnam and internationally.
  • IP Asset Management: Strategic advice on commercial exploitation and franchising.

SBLAW is committed to delivering sharp legal solutions, allowing businesses to create with confidence and reach new heights.

ASSERTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: SBLAW SUCCESSFULLY SECURES COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION FOR “MEMBERSHIP 4.0” COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR MEMBEE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION.

By
sblaw
-

In the era of digital transformation, software is not merely an operational tool but the core intellectual property of technology enterprises. Establishing copyright in a timely manner serves as a vital legal “shield” to protect intellectual labor and prevent any unauthorized replication of source code.

 

SBLAW is honored to have served as the consulting and legal representative for Membee Technology Corporation, assisting them in obtaining the official certificate of protection for the work: Membership 4.0 Computer Software.

  1. Strategic Value of the Protection Certificate

The “Membership 4.0” software product was diligently researched and developed by the authorial team to optimize the user experience in membership management. Obtaining this Certificate has yielded practical benefits:

  • Exclusive Exploitation: Ensures Membee is the sole entity with the right to distribute, commercialize, and develop upgraded versions of the software.
  • Positioning and Reputation: Demonstrates Membee’s innovative capacity and professionalism to partners and investors.
  • Solid Legal Foundation: Enables the company to enforce its rights and request the removal or legal handling of platforms or individuals committing copyright infringement.
  1. SBLAW’s Role in Protecting Intellectual Property Assets

Drawing on extensive practical experience in complex intellectual property (IP) projects, SBLAW’s team of experts supported Membee through a professional roadmap:

  • Legal Compliance Review: Audited ownership transfer agreements from the authors to the enterprise to ensure a transparent application file.
  • Specialized Dossier Preparation: Drafted declarations and prepared source code prints and software interfaces in accordance with the standards of the Copyright Office of Vietnam.
  • Representative Execution: Acted as the direct liaison with the Copyright Office, monitored progress, and delivered the protection certificate to the client on schedule.
  1. SBLAW – A Trusted Partner for Enterprises

The success of this protection project for Membee continues SBLAW’s streak of achievements in safeguarding IP assets for businesses within the Information Technology sector and various other industries. We believe that every creative line of code deserves protection to become a valuable corporate asset.

SBLAW’s Intellectual Property Services include:

  • Consultancy and Rights Establishment: Comprehensive procedures for registering Trademarks (Logos), Industrial Designs, Patents, and Copyrights.
  • Administration and Enforcement: Renewing certificates and resolving IP rights infringements or disputes.
  • Commercial Exploitation and Optimization: Strategic consulting on maximizing the value of IP assets through licensing agreements and franchising models.

SBLAW is committed to providing practical and in-depth legal solutions, empowering businesses to create with peace of mind and confidently assert their position in the digital economy.

FROM CULINARY EXCELLENCE TO LEGAL ASSETS: SBLAW ACCOMPANIES THE TRADEMARK PROTECTION OF “HOÀNH THÁNH ÔNG PHÚN”.

By
sblaw
-

 

Every great dish carries a story, and every successful culinary brand requires a solid legal foundation to thrive enduringly. Recently, SBLAW proudly accompanied and successfully established intellectual property rights for the trademark “Hoành Thánh ÔNG PHÚN” on behalf of Ms. Huỳnh Thị Như Quỳnh.

1. The Strategic Importance of the Protection Certificate

Receiving the Trademark Registration Certificate for “Hoành Thánh ÔNG PHÚN” under Class 43 is more than just a completed administrative procedure; it is a milestone affirming the owner’s rights over their intellectual property. The value of this certificate is demonstrated through key aspects:

  • Exclusive Identity: The certificate serves as the highest legal document confirming the priority and exclusive right of Huỳnh Thị Như Quỳnh to use the name “Hoành Thánh ÔNG PHÚN” across the entire territory of Vietnam.
  • Market Control Tool: The owner has full authority to prevent entities from profiting off the brand’s reputation, such as competitors intentionally mimicking the name to cause customer confusion.
  • Leverage for Sustainable Business: This certificate acts as an essential “passport” for the brand to advance toward more sophisticated business models, such as franchising or professional investment partnerships.
  • Long-term Value Accumulation: This ownership right is valid for 10 years with unlimited renewal possibilities, allowing the brand to become a business legacy that can be inherited and increase in value over time.

2. Strategic Management and Optimization of IP Rights by SBLAW

In this project, SBLAW’s team of lawyers acted as strategic consultants, performing specialized tasks to maximize the client’s interests:

  • Building an Optimal Protection Portfolio: Accurately classified and registered services for restaurants, self-service, and take-away food.
  • Legal Risk Management: Provided consultation on the scope of protection for trademark components, helping the owner clearly understand their rights and legal boundaries.
  • Enforcement of Ownership Rights: Standing ready to represent the owner in preventing and handling unauthorized trademark usage in the market.

3. Strategic Vision with SBLAW

The success of the “Hoành Thánh ÔNG PHÙN” project once again affirms SBLAW’s capability in supporting individuals and enterprises on their journey toward brand professionalization.

Advanced IP Solutions from SBLAW:

  • Rights Establishment: Consulting on the registration of Trademarks, Copyrights, Industrial Designs, and Patents.
  • Enforcement and Protection: Handling infringements, resolving disputes, and renewing protection certificates.
  • Commercial Exploitation: Valuation of intellectual property assets and consulting on licensing or franchising agreements.

Protect early, reach far. Let’s join SBLAW in building a solid legal foundation for the journey of affirming your business’s position in the market!

China National Intellectual Property Administration Amended GUIDELINES FOR PATENT EXAMINATION (2025)

By
sblaw
-

Recently, China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has issued a decision on amending  the GUIDELINES FOR PATENT EXAMINATION (Order No. 84 of the CNIPA). The newly amended GUIDELINES FOR PATENT EXAMINATION will  take  effect on January 1, 2026. The amendments focus on  improving  patent examination  standards and optimizing examination rules  for new fields and  new business formats, covering  aspects including inventor identity information, ethical  review of artificial intelligence, disclosure and assessment of inventive step  for inventions relating to  algorithms and data, patent examination of streaming media video encoding bitstream,  evaluation criteria  for inventive step, patent protection scope of plant varieties and cultivated biological varieties, adjustments to the system for applications filed on the same day, and systematic optimizations such as invalidation procedures and refund rules. The following is a comparison table for part of the amendments:

Guidelines for Patent Examination

(Order No. 78 of the CNIPA)

Guidelines for Patent Examination

(Amended in accordance with Order No. 84 of the CNIPA)
Part I, Chapter 1

4.1.2 Inventor

As prescribed in Rule 14, the inventor refers to the person who has made creative contributions to the substantive features of an invention-creation.The examiner does not examine whether or not the inventor whose name is filled in the request meets the requirements of the above provision in the examination procedures at the Patent Office.

The inventor shall be an individual, and the name of an entity, organization, or artificial intelligence shall not be filled in the request. For example, it shall not be filled in as “xx project group” or “Artificial Intelligence xx”, etc…

 Part I, Chapter 1

4.1.2 Inventor

As prescribed in Rule 14, the inventor refers to the person who has made creative contributions to the substantive features of an invention-creation. It is not allowed to fill in a false inventor. The examiner generally does not examine whether or not the inventor whose name is filled in the request meets the requirements of the above provision in the patent examination procedures, unless there is evidence indicating that the inventor whose name is filled in the request does not meet the above provision.

The inventor shall be an individual (i.e., a natural person). The identity information of all inventors shall be filled in the request, and the information shall be accurate. The name of an entity, organization, or artificial intelligence shall not be filled in the request. For example, it shall not be filled in as “xx project group” or “Artificial Intelligence xx”, etc.
Part II, Chapter 1

4.4 Animal and Plant Varieties

Animals and plants are living things. According to Article 25.1(4), no patent rights shall be granted for animal and plant varieties.  The animal referred to in the Patent Law does not include humans, and it refers to the life form that cannot synthesize carbohydrates and proteins by itself but maintains life only by absorbing natural carbohydrates and proteins.  The plant mentioned in the Patent Law refers to the life form that maintains its life by synthesizing carbohydrates and proteins from inorganic compounds, such as water, carbon dioxide, and inorganic salt, through photosynthesis, and is usually immovable. Animal and plant varieties can be protected under other laws and regulations besides the Patent Law. For example, new plant varieties can be granted protection under the Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

…

 Part II, Chapter 1

4.4 Animal and Plant Varieties

Animals and plants are living things. According to Article 25.1(4), no patent rights shall be granted for animal and plant varieties.  The animal referred to in the Patent Law does not include humans, and it refers to the life form that cannot synthesize carbohydrates and proteins by itself but maintains its life only by absorbing natural carbohydrates and proteins. The plant variety mentioned in the Patent Law refers to a plant population that is artificially bred or discovered and improved. It has consistent morphological and biological characteristics and relatively stable genetic traits.  The life form that maintains its life by synthesizing carbohydrates and proteins from inorganic compounds, such as water, carbon dioxide, and inorganic salt, through photosynthesis, and is usually immovable. Animal and plant varieties can be protected under other laws and regulations in addition to the Patent Law. For example, new plant varieties can be granted protection under the Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

…
Part II Chapter 3

6.2.2 Handling of One Application and One Patent

…

However, where an applicant files on the same day (means the date of filing) applications for both patent for utility model and patent for invention relating to the identical invention-creation, if the patent for utility model has been granted and does not terminate, and the applicant has stated the fact respectively upon filing the applications, double patenting may be avoided by amending the invention application, or alternately by abandoning the patent for utility model. Therefore, during the examination of the invention application mentioned above, if the invention application has met all the other conditions for patentability, the applicant shall be notified to make a choice or make amendments. Where the applicant chooses to abandon the patent for utility model which has been granted, he shall submit a written declaration to abandon the patent for utility model at the time of making response to the Office Action. In this case, the examiner shall issue Notification to Grant Patent Right regarding the invention application which has met all the conditions for patentability but has not been granted yet, and transfer the written declaration of abandoning the patent for utility model mentioned above to the relevant examination departments for registration and announcement by the Patent Office. In the announcement, it shall be indicated that the patent right for utility model mentioned above ceases from the date of the announcement of grant of the patent for invention.

 

 

 Part II Chapter 3

6.2.2 Handling of One Application and One Patent

…

However, Where an applicant files on the same day (means the date of filing) applications for both patent for utility model and patent for invention relating to the identical invention-creation, in accordance with the provision of Rule 47, the applicant shall state respectively upon filing the application that another patent application for the identical invention-creation has been filed; where no such statement is made, the issue shall be handled in accordance with the provision of Article 9.1 that for any identical invention-creation, only one patent right shall be granted; where such a statement is made, and it is found upon examination that there is no grounds for rejection of the invention application, the applicant shall be notified to declare the abandonment of the patent for utility model within the specified time limit. Where the applicant declares to abandon the patent for utility model, a decision of grant of the patent for invention shall be made, and when an announcement of grant of the patent for invention is made, the declaration that the applicant has abandoned the patent for utility model shall also be announced. Where the applicant refuses to abandon the patent for utility model, the invention application shall be rejected. Where the applicant fails to respond within the time limit, it shall be deemed that the invention application has been withdrawn. if the patent for utility model has been granted and does not terminate, and the applicant has stated the fact respectively upon filing the applications, double patenting may be avoided by amending the invention application, or alternately by abandoning the patent for utility model. Therefore, during the examination of the invention application mentioned above, if the invention application has met all the other conditions for patentability, the applicant shall be notified to make a choice or make amendments.

Where the applicant chooses to abandons the patent for utility model which has been granted, he shall submit a written declaration to abandon the patent for utility model at the time of making a response to the Office Action. In this case, the examiner shall issue a Notification to Grant Patent Right regarding the invention application, which has met all the conditions for patentability but has not been granted yet, and transfer the written declaration of abandoning the patent for utility model mentioned above to the relevant examination departments for registration and announcement by the Patent Office. In the announcement, it shall be indicated that the patent right for utility model mentioned above ceases from the date of the announcement of grant of the patent for invention.
Part II Chapter 4

6.4 Examination on the Claimed Invention

The determination of whether an invention involves an inventive step shall be directed at the claimed invention. Therefore, the evaluation of inventive step shall concern the technical solutions as defined in the claims. The technical features by which the invention makes contribution over the prior art, such as the technical features bringing about unexpected technical effects for the invention, or the technical features reflecting how the invention overcomes a technical prejudice, shall be included in the claims; otherwise, they shall not be taken into account in evaluating the inventive step of the invention, even if they have been set forth in the description. Moreover, the evaluation of inventive step shall be directed to the whole of each technical solution defined in the claims, that is, it is the technical solution as a whole, rather than the individual technical features, that shall be evaluated as to whether involving an inventive step.

 

 Part II Chapter 4

6.4 Examination on the Claimed Invention

The determination of whether an invention involves an inventive step shall be directed at the claimed invention. Therefore, the evaluation of inventive step shall concern the technical solutions as defined in the claims. The assessment of inventive step shall be directed to the whole of each technical solution defined in the claims, that is, it is the technical solution as a whole, rather than the individual technical features, that shall be evaluated as to whether it involves an inventive step.

The technical features by which the invention makes contribution over the prior art, such as the technical features bringing about unexpected technical effects for the invention, or the technical features reflecting how the invention overcomes a technical prejudice, shall be included in the claims; otherwise, they shall not be taken into account in evaluating the inventive step of the invention, even if they have been set forth in the description. Moreover, the evaluation of inventive step shall be directed to the whole of each technical solution defined in the claims, that is, it is the technical solution as a whole, rather than the individual technical features, that shall be evaluated as to whether involving an inventive step. The features that do not contribute to solving the technical problem generally do not affect the inventive step of the technical solution, even if they are included in the claims.
Part II Chapter 9

6.1.1 Examination According to Article 25.1(2)

…

 

 Part II Chapter 9

6.1.1 Examination According to Article 5.1

For an invention patent application that contains features relating to algorithms or commercial rules and methods, if the data collection, label management, rule setting, or decision-making,etc.therein contains content that is contrary to the laws or social morality or is detrimental to public interest, no patent right shall be granted according to the provision of Article 5.1 of the Patent Law.
Part II Chapter 9

6.2 Examination Examples

Below are examination examples for invention patent applications containing features relating to algorithms or commercial rules and methods, based on the above examination benchmarks.

(1) Invention patent applications containing features relating to algorithms, or commercial rules and methods which fall within the scope of Article 25.1(2) of the Patent Law are not patentable subject matters.

…

 Part II Chapter 9

6.2 Examination Examples

Below are examination examples for invention patent applications containing features relating to algorithms or commercial rules and methods, based on the above examination benchmarks.

(1)If an invention patent application containing features relating to algorithms, or commercial rules and methods, is contrary to the laws or social morality, or is detrimental to public interest, no patent right shall be granted.

(1)(2)Invention patent applications containing features relating to algorithms, or commercial rules and methods which fall within the scope of Article 25.1(2) of the Patent Law are not patentable subject matters.

…
6.3 Drafting of Description and Claims

6.3.1 Drafting of Description

The description of an invention patent application that contains features relating to algorithms, or commercial rules and methods, shall clearly and completely describe the solution adopted by the invention to solve its technical problem. The solution shall be based on technical features and may further include algorithm features, commercial rules, and method features that are functionally mutually supportive and interactive with the technical features. 

…

 6.3.1 Drafting of Description

The description of an invention patent application that contains features relating to algorithms, or commercial rules and methods, shall clearly and completely describe the solution adopted by the invention to solve its technical problem. The solution shall be based on technical features and may further include algorithm features, commercial rules, and method features that are functionally mutually supportive and interactive with the technical features. If the construction or training of an artificial intelligence model is involved, it is generally necessary to clearly record in the description the modules, hierarchical or connectivity relationships needed for the model, the specific steps, parameters essential for the training, etc.; if the application of an AI model or algorithm in a particular field or scenario is involved, it is generally necessary to clearly record in the description how the model or algorithm is combined with the particular field or scenario, and how the input and output data of the algorithm or model are set, to indicate their inherent association, enabling a person skilled in the relevant technical field to implement the solution of the invention according to the contents of the description.

…
Part II Chapter 9 Part II Chapter 9

7. Provisions Relating to Examination of Invention  Patent Applications including Bitstream

In the fields of streaming media, communication systems, and computer systems, various types of data are generally generated, stored, and transmitted as bitstreams. This section aims to make specific provisions on the examination of subject matter as patentable for invention patent applications, including bitstream and the drafting of the description and claims in accordance with the provisions of the Patent Law and its Implementing Regulations.

7.1 Examination of Subject Matter as Patentable

7.1.1  Examination According to Article 25.1(2)

If the subject matter of a claim relates solely to a bitstream itself, the claim falls under the rules and methods for intellectual activities as provided for in Article 25.1(2) and is not a subject matter eligible for patent protection. For example, “a bitstream, characterized in comprising syntax element A,  syntax element B, …”

If a claim, except for the title of its subject matter, relates solely to a bitstream itself in all the contents it defines, then the claim belongs to rules and methods for intellectual activities as provided for in Article 25.1(2)  and is not a subject matter eligible for patent protection. For example, “a method for generating a bitstream, characterized in that the bitstream comprises  syntax element A,  syntax element B, …”

7.1.2  Examination According to Article 2.2

In the technical field of digital video encoding and decoding, a bitstream is usually generated from video data by a video encoding method, and video data is generated from the bitstream by a video decoding method. If a specific video encoding method for generating a bitstream qualifies as a technical solution as provided for in Article 2.2, then the method for storing or transmitting the bitstream and the computer-readable storage medium storing the bitstream, as defined by the specific video encoding method,  are capable of achieving the optimized allocation of storage or transmission resources, and the like. Therefore, the method for storing or transmitting, as well as the computer-readable storage medium storing the bitstream, as defined by the specific video encoding method, constitutes a technical solution as provided for in Article 2.2 and constitutes subject matter eligible for patent protection.

7.2  Drafting of Description and Claims

7.2.1 Drafting of Description

The description of the invention patent application that contains the bitstream generated by a specific video encoding method shall provide a clear and complete description of that particular video encoding method, so that a person skilled in the technical field can implement it.  If the subject matter involves the method for storing or transmitting the bitstream and the computer-readable storage medium storing the bitstream, the description shall also provide relevant descriptions to support the claims.

7.2.2  Drafting of Claims

The invention patent application that contains bitstream generated by a specific video encoding method may be drafted as a storage method, a transmission method, and a computer-readable storage medium claim.  Such claims shall generally be drafted based on the claim for the specific video encoding method for generating the bitstream by referencing the claims for the particular video encoding method, or including all the features of the specific video encoding method.
Part II Chapter 10

9. Examination of Invention Application in the Field of Biotechnology

In this section, the term “biological material” means any material containing genetic information and capable of reproducing itself or being reproduced in a biological system, such as gene, plasmid, microorganism, animal, plant, and so on.

For the definition of the term “animal” and “plant”, the provisions of Chapter 1, Section 4.4 of this Part shall apply. The said animal and plant therein may be a taxon of any rank of animal and plant, such as kingdom, phylum, classis, order, family, genus, species, and so on.

 Part II Chapter 10

9. Examination of Invention Application in the Field of Biotechnology

In this section, the term “biological material” means any material containing genetic information and capable of reproducing itself or being reproduced in a biological system, such as gene, plasmid, microorganism, animal, plant, and so on.

For the definition of the term “animal” and “plant”, the provisions of Chapter 1, Section 4.4 of this Part shall apply. The term “plant” refers to a life form that maintains its life by synthesizing carbohydrates and proteins from inorganic compounds, such as water, carbon dioxide, and inorganic salts, through photosynthesis, and is usually immobile. The said animal and plant therein may be a taxon of any rank of animal and plant, such as kingdom, phylum, classis, order, family, genus, species, and so on.
Part II Chapter 10

9.1.2.3 An Animal, a Plant and a Constitutive Part Thereof

…

A somatic cell of an animal as well as a tissue and an organ of an animal (except an embryo) are not in conformity with the definition of “animal” said in Chapter 1, Section 4.4 of this Part, so they do not belong to the subject matters excluded according to the provisions of Article 25.1(4).

A single plant and its reproductive material (such as seed, etc.), which maintains its life by synthesizing carbohydrate and protein from the inorganic substances, such as water, carbon dioxide and mineral salt and so on through photosynthesis, belong to the category of the “plant variety” said in Chapter 1, Section 4.4 of this Part, and they are unpatentable in accordance with the provisions of Article 25.1(4).

If a cell, a tissue and an organ of a plant do not possess the above-mentioned characteristic, they cannot be regarded as “plant varieties”, therefore, they do not belong to the subject matters excluded according to the provisions of Article 25.1(4).

 Part II Chapter 10

9.1.2.3 An Animal, a Plant and a Constitutive Part Thereof

…

A somatic cell of an animal, as well as a tissue and an organ of an animal (except an embryo), are not in conformity with the definition of “animal” said in Chapter 1, Section 4.4 of this Part, so they do not belong to the subject matters excluded according to the provisions of Article 25. 1(4).

A wild plant found in nature, not technically processed, and existing in its natural state, falls within the scope of scientific discoveries under Article 25.1(1) and is not patent-eligible. However, if a wild plant is artificially selected or improved and can be exploited industrially, the plant per se does not fall within the scope of scientific discoveries.

A single plant and its reproductive material (such as seed, etc.), which maintains its life by synthesizing carbohydrate and protein from the inorganic substances, such as water, carbon dioxide and mineral salt and so on through photosynthesis, belong to the category of the “plant variety” said in Chapter 1, Section 4.4 of this Part, and they are unpatentable in accordance with the provisions of Article 25.1(4).

According to the definition of “plant varieties” as mentioned in Chapter 1 Section 4.4 of this Part, if a plant and its reproductive material obtained by artificial selection or improvement of a discovered wild plant a cell, a tissue and an organ does not possess consistent morphological or biological characteristics or relatively stable genetic traits in population the above-mentioned characteristic, they cannot be regarded as “plant varieties”, therefore, they do not belong to the subject matters excluded according to the provisions of Article 25.1(4).
Part III, Chapter 1

7.3 Other Special Fees

During the proceedings of the national phase for an international application, in addition to the fees mentioned in Section 1, Chapter 2 of Part V of these Guidelines and the grace fee discussed in Section 7.1 of this Chapter, there are the following special fees:

（1）the correction fee for translation errors, which shall be paid simultaneously with the request for correction of translation errors;  

（2）the fee for restoration of unity, which shall be paid within the time limit specified in the Notification to Pay the Restoration Fee for Unity issued by the examiner (for details of the fee for restoration of unity, see  Section 5.5, Chapter 2 of this Part );

（3）if a nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing as a  separate part of the description  exceeds  400 pages,  that  nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing shall be  calculated as  400 pages.

 Part III, Chapter 1

7.3 Other Special Fees

During the proceedings of the national phase for an international application, in addition to the fees mentioned in Section 1, Chapter 2 of Part V of these Guidelines and the grace fee discussed in Section 7.1 of this Chapter, there are the following special fees:

（1）the correction fee for translation errors, which shall be paid simultaneously with the request for correction of translation errors;  

（2）the fee for restoration of unity, which shall be paid within the time limit specified in the Notification to Pay the Restoration Fee for Unity issued by the examiner (for details of the fee for restoration of unity, see  Section 5.5, Chapter 2 of this Part ).

（3）if a nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing as a  separate part of the description  exceeds  400 pages,  that  nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing shall be  calculated as  400 pages.

 
Part IV, Chapter 3

3.2 Eligibility as a Petitioner for Invalidation

Where the petitioner falls into one of the following circumstances, the request for invalidation shall not be accepted:

(1) …

(2) …

(3) …

(4) …

 Part IV, Chapter 3

3.2 Eligibility as a Petitioner for Invalidation

Where the petitioner falls into one of the following circumstances, the request for invalidation shall not be accepted:

(1) …

(2)where the filing of the request for invalidation does not reflect the true intention of the petitioner.

…
Part IV, Chapter 3

4.6 Amendment to Patent Documents in the Invalidation Procedure

…

 Part IV, Chapter 3

4.6 Amendment to Patent Documents in the Invalidation Procedure

…

4.6.4 Submission of Text of Amendments

Where the patentee amends the claims, the patentee shall submit the full-text replacement sheets and the table of comparison of the amendments.

Where multiple texts of amendments submitted by the patentee in the examination procedure of the same request for invalidation all comply with the provisions of Section 4.6.3 of this Chapter, the last submitted text of amendments shall prevail, and the remaining texts of amendments shall not serve as the basis for examination.
Part V Chapter 2

1. Time Limit for Payment of Fees

…

The additional fee for filing an application refers to the fee required if the number of pages of the description (including drawings and sequence listing) of the application documents exceeds 30 or the number of claims exceeds 10. Such a fee shall be calculated based on the number of pages of the description or the number of claims.

…

 Part V Chapter 2

1. Time Limit for Payment of Fees

 …

The additional fee for filing an application refers to the fee required if the number of pages of the description (including drawings and sequence listing) of the application documents exceeds 30 or the number of claims exceeds 10. Such a fee shall be calculated based on the number of pages of the description or the number of claims. 
123...32Page 1 of 32

OUR OFFICE

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY

© Copyright 2024, All Rights Reserved - Design by: Baohothuonghieu.com