A patent is often seen as a recognition of research achievements and a basis for the exclusive owner to exploit the technology in the market. However, in business practice, the value of a patent is determined not only by the granting of the title, but also by the ability of the owner to effectively enforce his or her rights when infringement occurs.
A fairly common notion is that as long as the patent is still valid, the owner will easily prove infringement
The appellate judgment of the High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City in a dispute between Novartis AG and a Vietnamese pharmaceutical enterprise related to the active ingredient Vildagliptin is a typical example[1]. After nearly eight years of proceedings, the Court determined that the defendant had infringed on the patent, forced compensation for damages, paid attorney's fees and made public corrections. However, the most remarkable thing lies not in the result of the plaintiff's victory but in the legal issues and evidence that the parties must resolve during the proceedings. The case shows the fact that, in patent disputes, protection titles only establish rights; and whether or not to protect that right depends mainly on the ability of the enterprise to prepare evidence.
Patent does not mean the possibility of winning a lawsuit
A fairly common notion is that as long as the patent is still valid, the owner will easily prove infringement. The reality is much more complicated.
In the case, the defendant did not deny the production of drugs containing the active ingredient Vildagliptin but argued that his product used a crystalline form of the active ingredient, while the plaintiff's patent did not protect this form. The entire dispute therefore no longer revolves around whether the defendant produces the active ingredient or not, but turns to the more important question: how far the scope of protection of the patent is determined.
This reflects the nature of many patent lawsuits today. The court must not only consider the existence of the protection title, but also determine exactly whether the product or process being sued falls within the scope of the protection claims. Only when the technical elements of the sued product correspond to the protection requirements can there be grounds to determine the infringement.
That is also why businesses should not consider patenting as the end point of the protection process, but only the beginning of a right enforcement strategy. Reviewing the scope of protection claims, preparing technical arguments and assessing the opponent's critical abilities in advance should be carried out right from the time of formulating an invention protection strategy, rather than waiting for a dispute to arise.
Initiating a lawsuit is only the final step of the intellectual property management strategy
It is worth noting that many businesses only begin to pay attention to patent protection when they discover that a competitor's product has appeared on the market. Meanwhile, in many countries with developed intellectual property systems, filing a lawsuit is only considered the last step of an intellectual property management strategy that is prepared very early.
That strategy includes not only registering for protection, but also the process of tracking competitors' patent applications, monitoring new products in the market, keeping documents proving the commercial exploitation process of the enterprise itself, and preparing technical documents to prove the scope of protection. When a dispute arises, businesses do not have to start collecting evidence from the beginning, but can quickly implement enforcement measures.
From a governance perspective, this is the difference between a business that considers a patent as a "certificate" and a business that considers it an asset that needs to be managed throughout the life cycle of exploitation.
Technical examiners often decide the outcome of a lawsuit
In the above dispute, although the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology has concluded that there is an act of infringement and the National Office of Intellectual Property has also determined that the defendant's product contains infringing elements, the Court still conducted an independent assessment. The assessment conclusion determines that the active ingredient in the defendant's product is equivalent to or coincides with the points of claim for protection of the patent and becomes one of the important grounds for the Court to make a ruling.
This development shows that the conclusions of state management agencies are meaningful to support but not replace the activity of proving before the Court. In many patent disputes, technical examination is the most convincing evidence.
Therefore, before initiating a lawsuit, enterprises need to carefully assess their assessment capabilities, prepare sufficient technical documents and anticipate critical situations about the scope of protection. This is often more of a determining factor in the success or failure of a lawsuit than purely legal arguments.
Choosing the right time to file a lawsuit is also a strategic decision
Another issue that is rarely mentioned is the timing of the lawsuit.
If the lawsuit is initiated too early when the evidence of the scope of protection, infringement or damage is incomplete, the enterprise may have difficulty in proving its claim. Conversely, if you delay too long to continue negotiations or wait for more evidence to be collected, the infringement may continue to expand, evidence is lost, and the damage is greater.
Therefore, the decision to initiate a lawsuit is not only a reaction to the violation but should be considered on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, the ability to apply rights protection measures and the economic efficiency of the lawsuit.
Compared to proving infringement, proving damages is often much more difficult.
Proving damage is always the biggest challenge
Compared to proving infringement, proving damages is often much more difficult.
In the case, the plaintiff said that it was not possible to fully determine the number of products that had been manufactured and distributed as well as the benefits that the defendant obtained from the infringement. Therefore, the plaintiff chooses to claim compensation according to the provisions of the Intellectual Property Law instead of proving the entire actual damage. The Court accepted this request, and at the same time forced the defendant to pay the lawyer's fee of VND 300 million due to the plaintiff's full presentation of the legal service contract and related documents.
From a corporate governance perspective, this is a reminder that business data storage systems can also become part of an intellectual property protection strategy. Sales, market share, commercial contracts, sales data, or documents reflecting lost economic benefits can all become important evidence to determine future compensation.
Besides, businesses also need to assess the overall cost of a lawsuit. In addition to court fees and attorney fees, there are also costs of expertise, hiring technical experts, collecting evidence, translating documents, and administrative resources that must be spent on the protracted proceedings. An effective lawsuit decision should therefore be considered not only from a legal perspective but also from an economic perspective.
The prolonged procedural period does not deprive the right to request protection
A notable argument of the defendant is that the patent has expired by the time the Court resolves the case, so the plaintiff no longer has the right to sue. However, the Court did not accept this view because the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit while the title was still valid and only requested to consider the infringement acts that occurred while the intellectual property rights were still protected.
This ruling has important implications for patent owners. In the context of many intellectual property disputes of a complex technical nature and a long settlement time, the right to request the handling of infringements does not automatically disappear just because the diploma expires during the proceedings.
Evidence governance is key to enforcing intellectual property rights
International trends show that the value of a patent is increasingly valued not only in the ability to monopolize the exploitation of technology, but also in the ability to enforce rights through the judicial system. Many large technology and pharmaceutical companies develop programs to monitor infringement, store evidence, and assess litigation risk as part of their intellectual property governance strategies. This trend will also become increasingly necessary in Vietnam as innovation and investment in research and development play an increasingly important role in the competitiveness of businesses.
The dispute between Novartis and a Vietnamese pharmaceutical company shows that the true value of a patent does not lie in the granted certificate but in the ability of the owner to defend that right before the jurisdiction. In the context that intellectual property is increasingly becoming a resource to create competitive advantages, investing in evidence management systems, monitoring infringement behaviors and preparing rights enforcement strategies should be considered as a content of modern corporate governance. instead of just the work of the legal department when a dispute has arisen. A patent only truly becomes an economically valuable asset when the enterprise is able to transform the rights recorded on the diploma into de facto protected rights.
[1] https://tuoitre.vn/plo/doi-boi-thuong-vi-bi-xam-pham-bang-doc-quyen-sang-che-109586525.htm, accessed on 30/07/2026.
