The context of amending the Intellectual Property (“IP”) Law is emphasized by the National Assembly and the Government regarding the necessity of a shift in IP management mindset: from focusing on “rights establishment” to recognizing intellectual property rights as assets that can be valued, traded, included in financial statements, used as security, contributed as capital, or bought and sold in line with the knowledge economy development strategy, digital transformation, and international commitments (CPTPP, EVFTA, UKVFTA, etc.)[1]. The IP Law has undergone three major amendments in 2009, 2019, and 2022, and the Draft Amended Law 2025 is currently under consideration for approval by the National Assembly. This amendment is designed to address practical shortcomings in IP rights enforcement, such as difficulties in collecting evidence, documents, and data to prove infringement, determining damage values, and handling violations in the digital environment, while ensuring compatibility with international commitments and enhancing the commercialization of intellectual assets. These adjustments were presented and explained to the National Assembly by the Ministry of Science and Technology during the process of finalizing the draft[2].

Regarding the key amendments and supplements, the Draft Law focuses on five major policy groups:

• Supporting the establishment and commercialization of intellectual property rights;
• Simplifying administrative procedures and promoting digital transformation in IP administration (including shortening patent examination timelines and introducing accelerated examination mechanisms)
• Enhancing the effectiveness of rights protection (by expanding acts of infringement and strengthening coordination mechanisms among enforcement authorities);
• Completing the legal framework for the transfer, licensing, exploitation, and financialization of intellectual property assets (including valuation, recognition in financial statements, and the establishment of transaction price databases);
• Supplementing dispute resolution mechanisms, notably by formally introducing and encouraging the use of commercial mediation in the intellectual property sector[3].

Collectively, these changes have led to the amendment and supplementation of numerous provisions in the original Law. Specifically, the Draft clarifies the grounds for rights establishment, affirms the creative role of humans, and regulates the legal status of products generated by AI systems; it also adds provisions on evidence, professional appraisal procedures, and valuation criteria to create a legal basis for the valuation, sale, and mortgage of intellectual property rights while preventing abuse. Regarding enforcement, the Draft increases the statutory compensation framework when actual damages cannot be determined, expands infringing acts in the digital environment, clearly defines the responsibilities of platforms and intermediary organizations, and emphasizes the unified coordination mechanism between executive and judicial branches. Regarding contracts for the exploitation and commercialization of intellectual property rights, the Draft requires transparency in non-compete clauses, a clear division of responsibilities, public disclosure and reporting of exploitation revenue, and the protection of business secrets; it also proposes establishing focal points / “innovation centers” and transaction databases to resolve bottlenecks when enterprises use intellectual assets as security or for capital mobilization.

One of the most prominent and highly anticipated new additions is the inclusion of commercial mediation directly within the intellectual property legal framework – for the first time as an official method encouraged for use in disputes related to intellectual property rights (Clause 1, Article 198 of the Draft).

Commercial mediation (CM), regulated by Decree No. 22/2017/ND-CP, is an increasingly popular dispute resolution method. Globally, according to reports from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), over 70% of IP disputes are resolved through mediation due to its advantages and suitability for IP disputes involving confidentiality, rapid resolution time, and cost savings compared to arbitration and court proceedings[4].

According to current legal regulations, the scope of commercial mediation in intellectual property includes disputes between right holders and alleged infringers; disputes between IP co-owners; disputes arising from licensing contracts, transfers of rights, and creative service contracts; and disputes related to the valuation and benefit-sharing from IP exploitation. Mediation is designed as a flexible method that can be conducted before filing a lawsuit, during administrative processing, or even while the case is being considered by a court or arbitration body (with the parties’ consent)[5]. 

Regarding participating subjects, Decree 22 specifies that professional commercial mediators (with expertise in IP/startups/technology) or commercial mediation organizations recognized by the Ministry of Justice are permitted to mediate IP disputes. The Decree allows mediation to be conducted by independent mediation organizations (e.g., commercial mediation centers) or mediators assigned by the court in court-annexed mediation; parties may select specialized mediators in intellectual property, technology, or the digital economy[6]. Mediation may be conducted under commercial procedures (non-public, confidential) – a feature highly suitable for IP disputes involving trade secrets, data, and software 

Regarding the recognition mechanism for mediation results, the Draft allows a successful mediation protocol (or a mediation agreement signed by the parties and the mediator) to be submitted for Court recognition; once the court issues a recognition decision, the mediation agreement has the same effect as a court judgment/decision and is enforceable. This provision aims to increase the feasibility of enforcing mediation outcomes, providing the prevailing party with a legal basis for enforcement without undergoing full civil litigation procedures. Simultaneously, the Draft explicitly states that mediation does not exclude the right of parties to request state agencies to handle administrative violations or initiate civil lawsuits; however, the State encourages the prioritized use of mediation to reduce the burden on the courts and administrative systems, shorten resolution times, and preserve cooperative relationships between parties.

Regarding the relationship between mediation and other procedures, the Draft clarifies that mediation can be an independent or parallel step: mediation does not prevent the filing of a lawsuit, but when parties choose mediation and reach an agreement, recognition and enforcement ensure its effectiveness; in many cases, mediation is even recommended as a mandatory internal step before taking the matter to court (depending on the type of dispute and detailed regulations after the Law takes effect). Furthermore, the Draft assigns competent authorities (the Supreme People’s Court, the Ministry of Justice) with developing guidelines, lists of specialized IP mediators, and recognition proedures to ensure consistency in application.

Regarding the practical significance of integrating commercial mediation into the Intellectual Property Law: firstly, mediation increases flexibility, friendliness, and confidentiality for IP disputes, which often contain sensitive elements (trade secrets, technical information, algorithms), helping parties maintain relationships after conflict resolution – an aspect that courts or administrative handling often struggle to address[7]. Secondly, mediation aligns with the needs of FDI enterprises, technology companies, and startups that prioritize ADR for speed and confidentiality; the Draft thus moves towards international standards, where WIPO, EUIPO, and international ADR centers have long operated specialized mediation/ADR mechanisms for IP disputes (WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Center, EUIPO Mediation Centre), accelerating and professionalizing the resolution of cross-border technology and trademark disputes. Thirdly, regarding systemic efficiency, mediation will filter out cases capable of settlement, reducing pressure on courts and administrative agencies, especially in the context of rising IP disputes on e-commerce platforms; additionally, when a mediation protocol is recognized by the court, enforcement is faster, leading to more effective protection of rights in practice.

This amendment to the Intellectual Property Law marks a strategic shift from mere rights protection to the assetization and commercialization of intellectual property rights – accompanied by new legal mechanisms to increase enforcement efficiency, raise violation handling standards in the digital environment, and specifically, and formally establish commercial mediation as an official, internationally – aligned tool for resolving IP disputes quickly, confidentially, and collaboratively. These changes promise to strongly impact how businesses govern intellectual assets, rights enforcement methods, and the choice of dispute resolution mechanisms in the digital age – while simultaneously setting an urgent requirement to develop detailed guiding documents, training systems, and standardized competency frameworks for specialized IP mediators to ensure effectiveness in practical implementation.

Authors:

Mediator Tran Thi Huong – Deputy Director of External Relations

Secretariat

Nguyen Huong Giang – Student of Hanoi Law University

[1] Ministry of Science and Technology, Digital Transformation in Intellectual Property Administration: Opportunities and Challenges, https://mst.gov.vn/chuyen-doi-so-trong-quan-ly-so-huu-tri-tue-co-hoi-va-thach-thuc-197251012063704329.htm

[2] Hien Trang, Vu Hieu, Cao Hoang (2025), Amendment of the Intellectual Property Law: Promoting Digital Transformation and Administrative Procedure Reform, Portal of the National Assembly of Viet Nam, https://quochoi.vn/tintuc/Pages/tin-hoat-dong-cua-quoc-hoi.aspx?ItemID=97118

[3] Minh Hien, Proposal of Five Policy Groups for Amending and Supplementing a Number of Articles of the Law on Intellectual Property, Government Electronic Newspaper, https://baochinhphu.vn/de-xuat-5-nhom-chinh-sach-sua-doi-bo-sung-mot-so-dieu-cua-luat-so-huu-tri-tue-102250827150858942.htm, accessed 25/12/2025

[4] WIPO, ADR Advantages, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/advantages.html, accessed 25/12/2025

[5] Article 6, Decree No. 22/2017/ND-CP

[6] Ministry of Science and Technology, Submission on the Draft Law Amending and Supplementing a Number of Articles of the Law on Intellectual Property, 2025

[7] Le Hung Long (2022), Commercial Exploitation of Intellectual Property Assets and the Possibility of Resolving Intellectual Property Disputes through Negotiation and Mediation, Vietnam International Commercial Mediation Center (VICMC),https://vicmc.vn/khai-thac-thuong-mai-tai-san-tri-tue-va-gqtc-shtt-bang-thuong-luong-hoa-giai/