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​ 

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
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More