You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

October 11, 2021

A Look at Indonesia’s E-Filing System for Patents, Designs, and Trademarks

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia’s e-filing system for intellectual property, which was introduced in steps in recent years, became a vital tool during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it allows for the remote filing of intellectual property applications at any time. The increasingly feature-rich system, which now allows the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) to accept all types of intellectual property submissions online, is a welcome step forward that has had a very positive impact on the country’s intellectual property activities. Now that the online system is fully in place and functioning well, it is worth considering which points could be improved in future iterations of the project.

Patents

The e-filing system is especially easy to use for filing new patent applications, and also allows for the completion of post-filing tasks, including lodging oppositions and responding to office actions. In fact, office actions themselves are issued via the system, but without any active notification, leaving it up to the filers to proactively check on whether any office action has been issued. Additionally, after filing a response to an office action, no receipt is issued in return. The only way to be certain that a response has been successfully submitted is by logging into the system to check that the office action is no longer listed as outstanding.

Amendments can be submitted at any time prior to the grant of the patent. However, the official fee for excess claims can only be paid when the status of the application is under substantive examination.

Designs

Design applications and post-application filings, including rejection responses, can also all be made through the e-filing system. However, there are issues with design applications that have more than one drawing per view. In such a case, the multiple drawings for that particular view must be combined on one sheet before uploading the application. Otherwise, the extra drawings will be reclassified as “reference view” on the design certificate, likely resulting in a lengthy delay, because the e-filing system does not allow correction requests. Such requests can only be made in person at the DGIP office.

Rejection notices are sent via email and cannot be found on the e-filing system, which will only display the application status as “Director’s approval of rejection decision.” Similar to the office action responses for patents described above, responses to a rejection receive no official filing receipt.

Trademarks

One convenient feature of the e-filing system for trademark applications is its translated list of goods and services in English and Bahasa Indonesia, minimizing the risk of erroneous translation. However, the list of goods and services is subject to change from time to time, and it is not uncommon to find some goods and services deleted unexpectedly or the wording altered. If the desired goods or services are missing from the list but are mentioned on the Madrid List of Goods and Services, a request to add them may be submitted with the application. The request process can be time-consuming, and the application will not receive a filing date unless the list has been finalized. Sometimes the request is not automatically forwarded to the classification officer, and the request must then be made to the DGIP’s customer service department.

Some miscellaneous issues encountered in the trademark section of the e-filing system include the following:

  • After an application is submitted, an error sometimes prevents the receipt from being downloadable, necessitating further discussions with customer service.
  • All notifications for trademark-related applications are issued electronically, but sometimes the notification date displayed by the e-filing system is later than the actual date of the notification letter, because the letters of notification are not always uploaded to the e-filing system on the day they were issued by the officer.
  • The registration certificate from the e-filing system does not always list the goods or services in the same order as the application. The only remedy for this is to submit a change request.
  • The status of applications in the e-filing system is not always up to date.
  • Under heavy traffic, the system becomes inaccessible for hours. It can be difficult to reach customer service due to limited availability. The live chat feature for questions is likewise often delayed or unresponsive.

Conclusion

Indonesia’s move to an e-filing system has brought tremendous gains in flexibility and convenience to the country’s management of intellectual property rights—particularly for intellectual property consultants working from home during the pandemic. The online system has greatly modernized procedures for securing intellectual assets in Indonesia, and with the additional functionality added and honed since the onset of the pandemic, the system has become an integral part of the DGIP’s interactions with rights holders and applicants. Though much of the application data from the initial phases of the e-filing system has yet to be added to the current system, once this data is integrated, the e-filing system will be even more useful.

The DGIP now has the opportunity to build on its successful implementation of this comprehensive e-filing system by addressing the various challenges and shortcomings identified above. With time, the DGIP will work out these issues and others that may arise, increasing the practicality of the e-filing system as the foremost tool for intellectual property prosecution in Indonesia.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More