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

December 6, 2018

Indonesia Issues Regulation for Recordal of IP License Agreements

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In July 27, 2018, the Indonesian government enacted Government Regulation No. 36 of 2018 on the Recordal of Intellectual Property License Agreements (GR No. 36/2018). This is the first government regulation ever issued in Indonesia on the procedures for recording license agreements for copyright and related rights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, and plant varieties.

Requirements for License Agreements   

For a license agreement to be eligible for recordal, GR No. 36/2018 sets out the following general requirements:

  • The licensor may not grant a license to the licensee if the terms of protection have lapsed or the IP registration is withdrawn.
  • The license agreement must be written, and in Indonesian.
  • The license agreement cannot include provisions that:
    • Harm Indonesia’s economy or national interests;
    • Hamper the ability of Indonesians to transfer, control, or develop technology;
    • Result in unfair business competition; or
    • Conflict with prevailing laws, religion, morality, and public order.

Additionally, the license agreement must contain the following information:

  • Date and place of execution of the license agreement;
  • Information regarding the licensor and the licensee;
  • Object of the license agreement;
  • Type of license (exclusive, non-exclusive, or sublicense);
  • Duration of the license agreement;
  • Applicable territory; and
  • Information on the party responsible for any patent annuity payment.

To avoid disclosing confidential information, it is advisable to submit a short-form license agreement containing only the aforementioned requirements, rather than the full license agreement between the parties.

Application Process   

An application for recordal can be filed by the licensor, the licensee, or a proxy. The application must include:

  • A copy of the license agreement;
  • An official excerpt of the valid IP registration certificate, or proof of ownership of the IP;
  • Power of attorney (if the application is submitted by a proxy); and
  • Receipt of payment of the official fee for recordal.   

For license agreements related to copyright and related rights, Article 9 of GR No. 36/2018 specifies that if there are multiple titles or creations with the same licensor/licensee, all of the works may be included in one application for recordal.   

After submission of the application, an examiner will review the application to verify that all required documents have been submitted. If the application is complete, the examiner will inspect the correctness of the documents within five days of submission. If it is determined that the documents do not meet the requirements, the examiner will issue a written notice to the applicant. The applicant must then provide the requested documents or otherwise rectify any shortcomings within 30 business days after the notice is received. Failure to do so will lead to withdrawal of the application.   

Once the examiner determines that the application is complete, a letter of recordal of the license agreement will be issued within two days. The license agreement will be recorded with the relevant IP registry and the recordal will be published in the relevant official gazette.

Validity, Amendment, and Revocation

A recordal of a license agreement is valid for the same term specified in the license agreement itself. At the expiration of this term, the applicant may re-apply for recordal.

If there is an amendment to the license agreement, the licensor or the licensee may apply for recordal of the amended license agreement. The amendment will be recorded and published, just as the original.

A recordal of a license agreement may be revoked by an agreement between the licensor and licensee or based on a judicial decision.

Other Issues   

Under Article 15(4) of GR No. 36/2018, if a license agreement is not recorded and published, it will have no legal implications toward a third party. Thus, prior to commencing any legal action against a third party, IP holders are strongly advised to first confirm that the license agreement was properly recorded.   

While the new regulation marks a positive advance in the protection and enforcement of IP in Indonesia, rights holders should note that, to date, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property has not yet fully implemented the steps of notifying the applicant of the recordal of the license agreement and publication in the official gazette.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
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