Short answer: The patentability boundary for algorithms in Vietnam turns on a single question: do the claims produce a technical effect beyond the computation itself? An algorithm running on a ‘generic computer’ to output information is excluded; the same algorithm controlling a physical process, processing measured signals, or improving the computer system’s own operation at a technical level crosses the boundary.
Legal basis
Article 59 of the IP Law excludes mathematical methods, schemes and rules for performing mental acts, and computer programs as such — the words ‘as such’ are the key: the law does not ban every software-related invention, only protection of the abstract subject matter itself. Articles 61–63 then test novelty and inventive step on the solution’s technical contribution. IP Office examination practice follows this line for software applications: purely informational or business features do not count toward inventive step.
How this applies in practice
Picture three examples on one spectrum. A mathematically faster data-sorting algorithm: pure algorithm, excluded. The same algorithm embedded in a telecom device’s signal compression and transmission system, measurably cutting transmission latency: technical contribution, has a chance. A dynamic pricing algorithm for an e-commerce platform: even running on real servers, its effect is a business effect (more revenue), not a technical one — excluded. The ‘what effect, where, measured by what’ frame is the most practical drafting tool for this subject matter.
On drafting technique: open the claims with a technical subject (system, device, signal-processing method), place the algorithmic steps as the means to the effect, and have comparative experimental data ready in the description. If the examiner issues an intended refusal under Article 59, the effective answer is amending the claims to lock the technical link tighter — not a philosophical debate about the nature of algorithms. The ideal drafter for this problem is a patent engineer who understands both the code and claim language; a pure lawyer or a pure programmer tends to slip at exactly this junction.
Action checklist
- Answer three questions before drafting: what is the effect, is it technical or business, and by what metric is it measured.
- Search similar applications already granted in Vietnam to learn how accepted claim frames are built.
- Draft claims in system/technical-method form, with the algorithm as the means inside the process.
- Add experimental data and the related hardware/signal description into the specification.
- Prepare a claim-amendment plan in advance for an Article 59 refusal notice.
Risks and practical notes
The classic mistake is copying a US or European claim set verbatim into Vietnam: the ‘technical effect’ standard differs across systems, and claims that passed abroad can still die under Article 59 in Vietnam where the contribution lies in information. Prosecution also tends to run through several amendment rounds — software applications usually cost more time than mechanical ones, and that must be budgeted into the product plan from the start.
Frequently asked questions
Algorithms are excluded, so how should the application be drafted?
Draft the claims around the algorithm’s technical application — the system, device or physical process it controls or processes — and prove a measurable technical effect in the description.
What examples have been granted in Vietnam?
Signal-processing, device-control and industrial image-inspection solutions applying algorithms to concrete technical processes are the groups commonly granted; specific cases should be searched in the Office database for your field at filing time.
Who should write the technical description to raise the grant chances?
A patent engineer or industrial property agent with a technical background in the exact field (electronics, telecoms, software) — someone fluent in both the algorithm and technical-effect claim framing.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council