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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More