A joint venture between a Chinese investor and a Vietnamese partner — the Chinese parent licenses technology, production lines and know-how to the JV — what must the licence agreement contain so the technology doesn’t “fall” to the partner if the JV collapses? This is existential: many broken Vietnam–China JVs leave the Chinese side with a former partner holding the entire technology turned competitor. This article lists the mandatory licence clauses — from scope and royalties to technology “clawback” on termination — protecting the licensor in every scenario.
Five “survival” licence clauses in Vietnam–China JVs
1. Scope of use: narrow, conditional, non-exclusive
The licence must spell out scope: which technologies (itemised, never generic “manufacturing technology”), for what purpose (only the JV’s products), in which territory (Vietnam only — no exporting the technology to third countries), for how long. Rule: grant non-exclusive rights absent special strategic reasons — so the parent stays free to use and license elsewhere. Every scope expansion needs a signed amendment, never implication.
2. Royalties and adjustment mechanics
Royalties should track the JV’s actual revenue or output, with a minimum royalty floor against technology “hibernation”. Provide for payment periods, revenue reporting and audit rights — royalty disputes usually start with opaque revenue reports. Tax note: outbound royalties suffer 10% contractor tax in Vietnam (withheld before remittance).
3. Confidentiality and non-compete
Confidentiality must be comprehensive: defined confidential information, duties of the JV and each accessing individual, a confidentiality term surviving the agreement (typically 5–10 years post-termination). Paired with the Vietnamese partner’s non-compete: during the term and for a period after, no using the technology for competing products — with reasonable geography and duration for enforceability.
4. Who owns improvements?
In operation, the JV may improve the base technology — who owns the improvements? The contract must allocate: improvements by whichever party, ownership and cross-licensing (grant-back) terms. Recommended model: improvements built on the base technology belong to the licensor (the Chinese parent), with the JV enjoying royalty-free use during the term — preventing the partner from “tweaking slightly” then claiming an independent new technology.
5. The “clawback” on termination — the most important
When the JV ends (expiry, dissolution, a party’s exit), what happens to the technology? The contract must provide: (a) use rights terminate immediately — no continued use by the JV or partner; (b) duties to return/destroy all documents, drawings and technical data; (c) confidentiality survives; (d) post-termination compliance audit rights. Without this clause, the licensor has almost no legal tool to stop the former partner exploiting the technology.
Negotiating these clauses: what the Vietnamese partner will push back on
Expect resistance — and prepare answers. On non-exclusivity: the partner will demand exclusivity in Vietnam; counter with exclusivity limited to the JV’s defined product lines and territory, reserving the parent’s right to license adjacent technologies. On grant-back: the partner will resist assigning improvements; a middle ground is joint ownership of jointly-created improvements with the parent holding an exclusive licence-back — but never leave improvement ownership silent. On post-termination non-compete: the partner will call it unreasonable; anchor reasonableness in a defined period (commonly 2–3 years), defined geography and defined competing products — courts enforce precise restraints and strike vague ones. On audit rights: the partner will see it as distrust; frame it as standard licensor practice protecting both parties’ royalty accounting. The negotiation dynamic favours the prepared: licensors who arrive with market-standard clause language from comparable technology JVs close faster than those improvising. And document the negotiation itself — the emails explaining why each protective clause exists become evidence of the parties’ intent if the clause is ever litigated.
Negotiating licence terms — what will the Vietnamese side “demand”?
Four typical Vietnamese-side demands
(1) Vietnam exclusivity: “we co-invested, so the technology must be exclusive to the JV” — counter: grant narrow exclusivity (JV products only, Vietnam only, with review periods) instead of absolute exclusivity. (2) Low royalties: “the technology is old, charge less” — counter: revenue-linked royalties + a floor (“old” technology generating revenue is still valuable). (3) Free improvement rights: “our improvements are ours” — counter: improvements based on licensed technology belong to the licensor (grant-back), with the JV enjoying free use. (4) No non-compete: “it restricts our business freedom” — counter: narrow the scope (2–3 years, specific products) to stay enforceable.
Negotiation tactics — three principles
(1) Don’t “show” all the technology before signing: disclose only enough for evaluation during talks — technical details transfer after the NDA + term sheet are signed. (2) Prepare “plan B”: if the partner rejects core protections (termination clawback, grant-back) — be ready to walk; lost technology never returns, but deals are plentiful. (3) Record the negotiation: emails, minutes — later they evidence the parties’ intent when clauses are disputed (especially in arbitration).
The post-signature phase most licensors neglect
Signing the licence is halftime, not full time. First, technology transfer discipline: deliver technology in staged tranches tied to JV milestones and royalty payments — never hand over the complete package on day one. Second, audit rhythm: exercise audit rights annually from year one, not only when suspicion arises — routine audits normalise oversight and deter under-reporting. Third, improvement tracking: require the JV to disclose improvements quarterly under the grant-back clause; unreported improvements discovered later become ownership disputes. Fourth, renewal preparation: start renewal or exit planning 12 months before expiry — the licensor negotiating against a deadline surrenders leverage. A licence agreement is a living relationship, not a filed document.
Licence compliance monitoring — never sign and forget
Mechanisms: (1) periodic reporting (the JV reports revenue/output using the technology — reconciled for royalty calculation); (2) audit rights (annual audits — never wait for suspicion); (3) improvement disclosure (the JV declares improvements under grant-back — quarterly). Common breaches: under-reporting revenue (cutting royalties), hiding improvements, using technology for out-of-scope products.
Termination and technology return — the endgame clause
When the JV ends, the technology must come back: (1) return-or-destroy (all documents, molds, software — certified in writing); (2) cease-use (the ex-partner stops all use — including “similar” technologies derived from yours); (3) non-compete tail (2–3 years — narrow enough to be enforceable); (4) surviving obligations (confidentiality survives 5–10 years — spelled out, not assumed). Enforce with exit audits (inspect before release) and escrowed penalties (money held back until return is verified). Reality: the end of a JV is when technology leaks most — plan the exit at entry.
JV licence checklist (Vietnam–China)
(1) Itemise the licensed technology (never generic); (2) limit scope: purpose, territory (Vietnam only), term; non-exclusive unless needed; (3) revenue/output-linked royalties + floor + audit rights; (4) confidentiality surviving 5–10 years post-term; (5) reasonable non-compete; (6) improvement ownership rules (grant-back to licensor); (7) termination clawback: stop use, return/destroy documents, surviving confidentiality, audit rights; (8) register the technology transfer contract if registrable; (9) model the 10% contractor tax on royalty flows. Principle: a good licence is drafted for the day the JV breaks, not the signing day.
Contact us
FLAT Law Firm advises Chinese investors in Vietnam across the full lifecycle: investment structuring, IRC/ERC procedures, tax, labour, intellectual property and dispute resolution. Contact us for advice tailored to your case.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council