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• The licensor may not grant a license to the licensee if the terms of protection have lapsed or the IP registration is withdrawn.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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More