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 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More