Hanoi, Vietnam – On 31 March 2026, the Vietnamese Government issued Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP, amending Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP (as further revised by Decree No. 15/2026/ND-CP and Decree No. 33/2026/ND-CP).
This Decree represents a material shift in Vietnam’s intellectual property (IP) regulatory landscape, moving beyond technical guidance toward strategic governance of IP assets, technology-enabled enforcement, and a structured legal approach to AI-assisted innovation.
For businesses operating in Vietnam, particularly in technology, digital content, and R&D-intensive sectors, the changes are not merely procedural. They directly affect how IP is created, managed, monetized, and enforced.
1. IP Asset Registers: From Compliance to Strategy
The introduction of Article 9a signals a clear policy direction: IP should be actively managed as a business asset, not passively recorded as a legal right.
While the Decree stops short of mandating formal accounting recognition, it effectively requires enterprises to build internal IP registers covering assets not yet reflected on balance sheets. This includes detailed information on legal status, origin, development cost, and estimated value.
Why this matters
This is more than an administrative exercise. In practice, it:
- Creates a quasi-due diligence standard for IP portfolios ;
- Enables internal valuation frameworks, which are critical for: Fundraising, M&A transactions, Secured lending (IP-backed financing);
- Signals increased scrutiny on how companies identify and track intangible assets.
Practical takeaway
Companies should treat this requirement as an opportunity to:
- Conduct a comprehensive IP audit;
- Align legal, finance, and business teams on IP valuation methodologies;
- Prepare for future scenarios where IP becomes a primary asset class in transactions.
2. Automated IP Enforcement: A Structural Upgrade
The amendments to enforcement provisions (Article 9đ) reflect Vietnam’s recognition that traditional enforcement mechanisms are no longer sufficient in a digital environment.
The Decree authorizes enforcement authorities to deploy automated systems capable of detecting, monitoring, and handling online infringements using AI, big data, and behavioral analytics.
Why this matters
This is a structural shift, not a technical upgrade:
- Proactive enforcement replaces reactive complaint-based systems;
- Online infringement (e.g., counterfeit listings, pirated content) becomes continuously monitored;
- Authorities gain tools to act at scale and across borders.
For rights holders, this significantly:
- Lowers enforcement costs;
- Increases the likelihood of swift takedowns;
- Enhances protection in high-risk sectors such as e-commerce and digital media.
But please note the limitation that automated outputs are expressly non-binding and do not replace human authority. This preserves due process but also means strategic engagement with authorities remains essential and evidence preparation and legal positioning still matter.
Practical takeaway
Businesses should:
- Integrate monitoring strategies with enforcement systems;
- Prepare for faster enforcement cycles;
- Reassess risk exposure in digital channels.
3. AI-Created IP: A Carefully Balanced Approach
Perhaps the most closely watched development is the introduction of Article 10a, addressing AI-assisted creations.
Vietnam has adopted a middle-ground approach:
- Rejecting fully autonomous AI authorship;
- While recognizing protection where meaningful human contribution exists.
Protection is granted only if a human:
- Defines the problem and solution concept;
- Controls key inputs and parameters;
- Substantively refines AI outputs (affecting core structure or function);
- Makes the final decision to seek protection.
Why this matters
This framework has immediate implications:
- Not all AI outputs are protectable;
- Businesses cannot rely on AI tools alone to generate protectable IP;
- Documentation of human involvement becomes critical evidence.
At the same time, the Decree provides a fallback: Non-qualifying outputs may still be used and commercialized, albeit without exclusive rights.
Strategic implications
Companies using AI in R&D or design should:
- Implement internal protocols documenting human contributions;
- Revisit workflows to ensure human control is demonstrable;
- Reassess ownership and authorship clauses in employment and contractor agreements.
4. A Clear Direction: IP as a Pillar of the Digital Economy
Taken together, Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP reflects a broader policy direction:
- IP is no longer treated as a static legal entitlement;
- It is repositioned as a dynamic economic asset;
- Enforcement is evolving toward technology-driven systems;
- Legal frameworks are adapting to AI-driven innovation.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
- Audit and structure your IP portfolio now: internal registers will become a de facto standard;
- Leverage automated enforcement, but do not rely on it exclusively;
- Re-engineer AI workflows to meet the “significant human contribution” threshold;
- Update contracts and internal policies to reflect new legal realities.
Conclusion
Decree 100 is not just an amendment, it is a signal of regulatory intent. Vietnam is positioning its IP system to support innovation, digital transformation, and capital markets integration.
Businesses that respond early by aligning governance, technology, and legal strategy will be best placed to capture value from their intellectual property in this evolving landscape.
How Bud & Prairie Supports You
We assist clients in navigating these changes through:
- IP portfolio audits and strategic structuring;
- Digital enforcement and anti-infringement strategies;
- AI-related IP risk assessment and compliance frameworks;
- Drafting and negotiation of IP ownership and commercialization agreements.
Contact Us
For tailored advice on how these changes affect your business, please kindly contact us at: bud-prairie@bud-prairie.com.
