In brief
On 24 September 2026, Vietnam's Supreme People's Court approved three new IP precedents and a resolution on the adjudication of IP disputes. The precedents address how courts may calculate damages for software copyright infringement, award attorneys' fees, assess evidence of authorship and determine when trademark-infringing conduct may constitute the criminal offence of industrial property infringement. Together, they should bring greater clarity to recurring issues in IP disputes. The final texts have not yet been published, and the resolution may differ from the June 2026 consultation draft. Businesses should monitor their publication, consider how the guidance may affect their IP strategy and any current or future disputes, and ensure that their evidence and record-keeping practices are fit for purpose.
Key takeaways
- The Judicial Council of the Supreme People's Court has approved three new IP precedents and reviewed additional draft resolutions and precedents for possible adoption.
- Vietnam's growing body of precedents is likely to influence how courts interpret the law and resolve IP disputes.
- Businesses pursuing or defending IP claims in Vietnam should monitor publication of the full texts and promptly assess how the new guidance may affect current or future disputes.
In more detail
1. Approval of the three IP precedents and resolution
- At its plenary session on 24 September 2026, the Judicial Council approved three IP precedents and a resolution on the adjudication of IP disputes. The precedents address issues that can materially affect the outcome of a case: the basis for calculating software copyright damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, proof of authorship and the treatment under criminal law of certain trademark-infringing conduct.
- Once published, the precedents will provide courts with a reference point when deciding cases involving similar facts and legal issues. For businesses and brand owners, the facts and reasoning will be important when assessing whether a precedent supports an enforcement action, a defence, or a claim for damages or costs.
- The accompanying resolution may have a broader procedural impact. The June 2026 consultation draft addressed standing, evidence, expert opinions, damages, attorneys' fees, remedies, international treaties, and administrative litigation. However, the final text may differ.
2. Overview of the three IP precedents
Precedent concerning software copyright damages
- The precedent concerns a defendant that copied and used copyright-protected software and a subsequent claim by the copyright owner for damages. To support its claim, the owner submitted evidence of earlier software-licensing transactions.
- The precedent indicates that a court may calculate damages by reference to the licence fee in the software licence agreement entered into closest in time before the infringement occurred.
- This should give courts and litigants a clearer, evidence-based approach to valuing software copyright claims – an area that has often presented practical challenges.
Precedent concerning attorneys' fees and proof of authorship
- The first aspect of this precedent concerns the recovery of attorneys' fees in IP litigation. A rights holder may be able to recover fees that were actually incurred and reasonably necessary to protect its lawful rights and interests, provided that it can produce legal services agreements, payment records, and other supporting evidence.
- The second aspect concerns proof of authorship. It addresses how a court should evaluate evidence that a party created and published a work before the registered rights holder obtained copyright registration.
- The precedent offers practical guidance on two issues that can materially affect IP litigation strategy: substantiating a claim for attorneys' fees and proving authorship when earlier evidence is used to challenge the registration record.
Precedent concerning criminal industrial property infringement
- This precedent concerns trading in goods bearing signs that are identical or confusingly similar to registered trademarks without the trademark owner's consent. It indicates that, where the relevant legal elements are met, this conduct should be characterized as the criminal offence of industrial property infringement.
- The precedent provides a clearer basis for classifying trademark-infringing conduct under criminal law. This should help distinguish industrial property infringement from other potentially applicable offences, including the manufacture of or trade in counterfeit goods.
3. Practical Considerations for IP Owners
- Keep records that support damages claims. Software businesses and other copyright owners should keep licence agreements and records of comparable transactions that may help establish the value of a claim. They should also keep dated records showing when protected works were created and published, and who owns and authored them.
- Keep clear records of legal costs. Rights holders seeking to recover attorneys' fees should keep signed legal services agreements, invoices, proof of payment and records showing why the work was reasonably necessary.
- Put record-keeping processes in place early. Businesses should have clear processes for creating, storing and retrieving relevant records before a dispute arises. Records made at the time are generally more reliable and useful than evidence reconstructed after litigation begins.
Conclusion
The three newly approved precedents expand the guidance available to Vietnamese courts and address recurring practical issues in IP disputes. Businesses should review the full texts once they are officially published, as the facts and reasoning of each precedent will determine when and how a court may apply it. They should also review the final resolution on the adjudication of IP disputes when it is published, as it may differ from the June 2026 consultation draft.
For IP owners, a strong claim often depends on evidence recorded and preserved well before a dispute begins. Businesses should review their record-keeping practices now and monitor publication of the final texts. We will provide further updates and separate analysis of each precedent once the official texts are available.
* * * * *
Hoa Tran, Partner, Son Tuan Do, Senior Associate, and Anh Thu Nguyen, Associate, have co-authored this legal update.
© 2026 BMVN International LLC. All rights reserved. BMVN International LLC is in strategic alliance with Baker & McKenzie (Vietnam) Ltd., a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "partner" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.