Vietnam’s Specialized IP Courts Launch in 2025: Navigating Jurisdictional Reforms and Their Effects on Foreign Pharma Patent Disputes

Introduction

Across South Asia, governments are upgrading intellectual property (IP) rules to attract investment and support innovation. Vietnam is now a key example. In 2025, the country began rolling out two big changes: (1) new, specialized IP courts, and (2) a shift of many IP tasks from the central government to provincial authorities. Together, these reforms aim to make disputes faster to resolve, licensing easier to manage, and enforcement more predictable, especially for high-stakes pharmaceutical patents.

Vietnam’s goal is straightforward: show investors, particularly in pharma, that their rights will be heard by judges who understand IP, and that day-to-day licensing will not be stuck in slow central pipelines. The government’s message is that better IP protection supports innovation and helps Vietnam climb global rankings. The launch of specialized courts and the decentralization of IP functions are the concrete steps meant to deliver on that message.

The Reforms Explained

Two levers moved at once. First, Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP (issued June 12 and effective July 1) shifted several IP management functions from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to provincial People’s Committees. That means licenses for technology transfer and some IP registrations can now be processed locally. Second, the National Assembly approved specialist IP tribunals within regional courts in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. These benches will hear IP civil and administrative cases, including complex patent disputes and invalidation actions, with judges trained in IP law. The aim is a system that is quicker and more expert than the general courts, where cases often dragged on for years.

This is not happening in a vacuum. Vietnam’s pharmaceutical market is worth billions and has been growing at more than 10 percent annually. Foreign firms hold most of the patents on advanced drugs, while local companies are building capacity in generics and research. The reforms are also meant to align practice with Vietnam’s trade commitments, including the CPTPP, by improving predictability, reducing backlogs, and offering clearer pathways to resolve disputes.

Key Shifts in Decentralization

Before Decree 133, many technology-transfer licenses and related approvals sat with MOST. That centralized model slowed deals that needed quick clearance. Moving these tasks to provinces is meant to bring decisions closer to the companies and laboratories that rely on them. In practical terms, a Hanoi-based drug maker seeking to license a patented manufacturing process no longer has to wait months for a central green light. The expectation is that local authorities can handle the file faster, sometimes in weeks, reducing red tape and encouraging partnerships. Faster licensing also helps foreign patent holders and Vietnamese collaborators start lawful production sooner.Challenges and Delays in

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Implementation

Paper reform is one thing; putting it into practice is another. Creating specialized courts and transferring powers to provinces require trained staff, new procedures, funding, and institutional coordination. Although the plan foresaw courts operating in 2025, administrative restructuring and limited resources have slowed the rollout. Some observers now expect full implementation to extend into 2027.

Those delays are not merely technical. For a patent owner trying to block a generic drug, uncertainty about which forum will hear the case and how quickly relief will be available undermines the reforms’ central promise - faster, more reliable enforcement. Likewise, differences in provincial capacity mean decisions that should be routine could end up taking longer or producing inconsistent results. That unpredictability increases costs for rights holders and weakens confidence in Vietnam’s system.

Efficiency Gains and Opportunities

Where the reforms are implemented well, the benefits are tangible. Specialised IP benches in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City are intended to focus on technical patent disputes - process patents, biologics questions, and invalidation actions, without being bogged down by unrelated matters. Experienced judges who handle IP cases regularly can manage evidence, technical expert testimony, and procedural timelines more tightly. In jurisdictions that have adopted similar models, specialization has often cut case time significantly.

For the pharma sector, even modest reductions in dispute length matter. Patent litigation is costly and time-sensitive: delays can influence pricing decisions, market entry, and patient access. Faster rulings also make Vietnam a more attractive place for foreign investors and give local firms clearer legal expectations for collaboration and licensing. Decentralized licensing, when paired with specialist courts, can therefore shorten the full ladder from approval to production.

Risks for Foreign Patent Owners

Decentralization comes with trade-offs. Provinces have varying resources and expertise. The existing IP regime in Vietnam is quite heterogeneous, which extends huge potentials of unequal treatment, and forum shopping, in which players will choose to launch lawsuits in the most favorable jurisdictions. The ability to secure very patent rights in Vietnam is a crucial factor to multinational pharmaceutical companies. However, the differences in provincial practices can make legal spend wasteful and legalize any technology transfer expansion efforts.The current transition period presents specific new improvements and complexities. Even as specialized IP courts are being established, prior patent disputes are still handled in general courts where staff are usually short of technical expertise and experience in the matters. Such a gap allows the free competitive flow of infringing products that can reduce the rights of the IP holder and delay the trial. This means that reform agenda may lead to disintegration of some of these barriers together with the emergence of other ones unless the issue of capacity and consistency is addressed in a timely manner.

Striking the Right Balance of Reform Objectives

Vietnam is confronted with a policy decision to reconcile two imperatives: to locate decision-making close to the place of commerce, and to locate expert tribunals where difficult cases are tried, with national coherence and investor confidence. With harmonious operations between decentralized licensing and specialized courts, we can experience faster approvals, better technical decisions and more commercial IP order. This arrangement can promote greater integration in the regional pharmaceutical supply chains and encourage innovation among the locals.However, success will be determined by implementation. Provinces need intensive training, guaranteed financial resources, and minor procedures, which should be followed strictly. The emerging courts will need well trained judges with high standards of case management as well as capable administration to help in case disposal in a very timely fashion. They need central government control to avoid provincial practices that are likely to undermine predictability.ConclusionThe IP reforms in Vietnam in 2025 are a serious effort to modernise the licensing process and the dispute settlement mechanisms in the drug industry. Some of their anticipated results include faster licensing, more highly-trained adjudicators, and more clearly defined means of resolving technical disputes. Finally, success of such reforms depends on their abilities to deal with timing and consistency issues. If provinces are properly equipped and the new IP courts stabilize quickly, Vietnam could become a more appealing and dependable jurisdiction for drug investment. The coming 18 to 24 months will show whether these reforms transition from policy documents to practical reality for companies and patients or not. Stakeholders must monitor routine procedures, timely judicial appointments, and adequate provincial training as signs that the written changes are making ground-level impact.

Author: Amrita Pradhan, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1.     Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on Decentralization of State Management of the Ministry of Science and Technology (Vietnam) (June 12, 2025).

2.     Law No. 07/2022/QH15 on Amendment and Supplement of a Number of Articles of the Law on Intellectual Property (Vietnam) (June 16, 2022).

3.     Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP Detailing the Implementation of a Number of Articles of the Intellectual Property Law on Industrial Property (Vietnam) (Aug. 23, 2023).

4.     Law No. 50/2005/QH11 on Intellectual Property (Vietnam) (Nov. 29, 2005).

5.     Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Mar. 8, 2018, https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/cptpp/comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership.

6.     World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Lex Database: Vietnam, https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile/VN (last visited Aug. 17, 2025).

7.     U.S. Trade Representative, 2024 Special 301 Report 51-53 (2024).

8.     U.S. Department of Commerce, Vietnam - Protecting Intellectual Property, https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/vietnam-protecting-intellectual-property (last visited Aug. 17, 2025).

9.     World Bank Group, Vietnam: Managing Public Investment for Efficient and Inclusive Growth (2019), https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/851851557045256676/vietnam-managing-public-investment-for-efficient-and-inclusive-growth.