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

June 5, 2019

Indonesia Issues New Regulation on Patent Applications

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On December 19, 2018, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia (MOLHR) ratified Regulation No. 38 of 2018 on Patent Applications as an implementing regulation of Law No. 13 of 2016 Concerning Patents.   

This regulation came into effect on December 28, 2018. It was presented to the public by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) on March 19, 2019, through a local seminar organized by the Indonesian Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (AKHKI) and the DGIP.   

This article summarizes the key changes, beneficial or otherwise, introduced by the new regulation.

Simple patent applications based on the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application cannot be filed in Indonesia.   

Before the enactment of the new regulation, applicants could file a simple patent application based on a PCT or a non-PCT application. However, under the new regulation, an application based on the PCT can only be filed as a patent application. Therefore the Patent Office is no longer accepting simple patent applications based on PCT applications and is only accepting simple patent applications based on non-PCT applications.   

In addition, a patent application based on a PCT application cannot be converted into a simple patent application, according to the regulation. The conversion of a patent application into a simple patent and vice versa is only possible for applications based on non-PCT applications.

The new regulation allows more flexibility for the preparation and submission of a microorganism certificate for a patent application related to a microorganism.

Before the enactment of the new regulation, applicants could only submit a microorganism certificate from a foundation or an international depository authority institution recognized by the Budapest Treaty. Under the new regulation, applicants may submit certificates from either a foundation or institution recognized by the Budapest Treaty, or from a local scientific foundation or institution approved by the MOLHR.

In addition, the new regulation clarifies the information that must be included in the microorganism certificate, as follows:

  • Sufficient explanation of the characteristics or specifications of the microorganism;
  • Name of the microorganism;
  • Date of submission for storage;
  • Name of the storage institution; and
  • The storage number of the microorganism.

This certificate should be filed within three months from the filing date, and an extension can be requested according to the statutory provisions.

The new regulation introduces the possibility of filing recordals of change of pending patent applications.   

Before the enactment of the regulation, recordals of change were only permissible for granted patents. However, the new regulation allows applicants to file recordals of change of name, address, and assignment, for both granted patents and patent applications at the DGIP.

The new regulation clarifies the patentability requirement by defining cited documents used during the substantive examination process.     

Under the new regulation, substantive examination of patent applications in Indonesia includes the examination of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. The application must also fulfill the other requirements under the Law (No. 13) Concerning Patents, which include (but are not limited to): 

  • Clarity of disclosure of the invention;
  • Unity of the invention; 
  • Consistency of the disclosure of the invention;
  • Support of claims by the description;
  • Sufficiency of the disclosure of the invention; and
  • Clarity of the claims.

Further, in conducting the substantive examination, the DGIP Examiner may use the following documents:

  1. Patent application documents filed in Indonesia or abroad that have been issued before the filing date of the application (or the priority date if the application is filed using priority rights);
  2. Patent documents granted in Indonesia or abroad where the date of publication is before the filing date of the application (or the priority date if the application is filed using the priority rights);
  3. Non-patent documents published before the filing date of the application (or the priority date if the application is filed using priority rights);
  4. An application filed in Indonesia published on or after the filing date of the application for which a substantive examination is being carried out, but the filing date or priority date of such application was filed in Indonesia earlier than the filing date or the priority date of the subject application for which the substantive examination is being examined;
  5. Evidence of general knowledge that has been made known in the field of technology from the invention specified in the application; and
  6. Comments or objections filed by the community, as well as rebuttal or explanations of the comments or objections.

Documents a–c above can be published either in Indonesia or abroad.

The time limit for filing a divisional application has changed.    

Before the enactment of the new regulation, a divisional application could be filed any time before the issuance of the final decision of substantive examination results of the parent application. The new regulation allows the filing of a divisional application only within three months from the date of the applicant’s response letter to the office action stating that the applicant agrees to file the divisional application.

The time allowance for fulfillment of simple patent application formality requirements has been shortened.   

According to the new regulation, applicants must provide any missing formality requirements within a maximum of one month from the date of issuance of the DGIP’s letter notifying them of the missing formality requirements. There is no possible extension. This one-month period for fulfillment of the formality requirements is a reduction of the previous three-month allowance under the old regulations.

The new regulation allows the filing of a request for judicial review of a withdrawn patent or simple patent application.   

The new regulation allows applicants to file a request for judicial review of a decision to withdraw a  patent or simple application. The request must include a reason, and is subject to a fee based on the statutory provisions. This request for judicial review must be filed within six months from the date of the notification of withdrawal. However, at the time of writing there are still no provisions regarding the official fee for filing a request for judicial review.    

The above changes bring both advantages and disadvantages to applicants in the prosecution of their patents or simple patent applications in Indonesia. The MOLHR’s provision of an alternative for a withdrawn patent or simple patent application to be revived through a judicial review request is a helpful development, for example, but the option to file a simple patent application has become rather limited. It used to be possible to file a simple patent based on a PCT application, but under the new regulation this is no longer possible. In addition, the shortened period for submission of the formal documents puts applicants into a time crunch, and they will need to pay closer attention to this time limit, and must make sure to provide the formal documents for their patent application in a shorter timeframe.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More