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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation