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

August 11, 2016

Indonesia’s Amended Patent Law 2016: New Requirements and Expanded Provisions

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On July 28, 2016, proposed amendments to Indonesia’s Patent Law were passed. The amendments will come into effect on August 28, and will bring with them a raft of changes to clarify uncertainties in the existing law. In this article, we discuss the key changes to Indonesia’s Patent Law under the amendments.

Exemptions from Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement

A number of exemptions from pharmaceutical patent infringement have been introduced under the amendments, including:

  • importation of a pharmaceutical product which is patented in Indonesia, and the product is legally marketed in another country without the permission of the patent owner; and
  • manufacturing of a pharmaceutical product which is patented in Indonesia within five years before the patent protection expires, for the purpose of licensing and marketing after the patent protection of the patent expires.

The exemption on the importation of pharmaceutical products is intended, according to the authorities, to help ensure that pharmaceutical products are reasonably priced, and access to pharmaceutical products is widened. This provision can be exercised if it is proven that the price of a certain pharmaceutical product in Indonesia is very high compared to the price of an identical product in the international market. The provision is strictly limited to “pharmaceutical products,” and it does not allow parallel imports of non-pharmaceutical products. The authorities may face challenges in determining what a fair price is, and it is hoped that they would involve patent holders/licensees in discussions before importation.

As to the exemption on the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products to acquire a license, also known as a “Bolar Provision,” this should help ensure that pharmaceutical products will be made available by another party after patent protection expires. The five-year period before patent protection expires has been extended from two years, which allows a longer time to manufacture a pharmaceutical product before the patent expires for the purpose of marketing and applying for licenses at BPOM, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control.

However, unless BPOM’s regulations are updated to align with the five-year period, producers of generic drugs will not be able to use this new provision in practice.

Second Use or Second Medical Use Claims

The amendments clearly prohibit protection against second use or “second medical use” of an existing patent. Before the amendments, the addition of claims providing a second use or second medical use of an existing patent was allowed. The amended law aligns with other jurisdictions such as India and Vietnam.

Compulsory Licenses

The amendments allow compulsory licenses to be granted if a developing country or least developed country requires a pharmaceutical product which is patented in Indonesia for the treatment of an endemic disease. The pharmaceutical product can be manufactured in Indonesia and then exported to the country.

If the pharmaceutical product has not been manufactured in Indonesia, a compulsory license would be granted to the government to import procurement of a pharmaceutical product for the treatment of an endemic disease. As this relies heavily on the government’s discretion, it would be interesting to see how the government would exercise its discretion in enforcing this provision.

Appeal Commission Authority Expanded

Prior to the amendment, the Patent Appeal Commission only examined appeal petitions of rejected patent applications. Under the amendments, however, the Commission has the authority to receive, examine, and decide on the appeal petitions of:

  1. a refused application;
  2. a correction of the patent specification, claims, and/or drawings after the application has been granted; and
  3. notice of a grant decision with respect to a post-grant opposition.

Also, under the amendments, a post-grant opposition can be filed in addition to the pre-grant opposition. Before, an opposition could only be filed at the pre-grant stage. The Commission’s extended authority should be welcomed by patent holders, as it provides another alternative to invalidation of a granted patent without having to engage in litigation.

Patent Annuity Fees

One of the most challenging issues related to patent protection in Indonesia over the past few years has been the collection by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) of outstanding patent annuities or “debt” for abandoned patents.

Before the new Patent Law, back annuities were due within one year from the issue date. A 2.5 percent penalty fee was applied to late payment for each month from the due date. The fee for late payment could be paid up to three years from the due date. If the annuity payment was not made within three consecutive years, the patent would be deemed null and void.

In addition, if the patent had been abandoned passively or by way of non-payment of the annuity, a patent holder would still have an obligation to pay the outstanding patent annuity fees. This is because the three years of annuity fees which had not been paid were considered as debt owed to the DGIP. To avoid having to pay the remaining annuity fees, the patent holder had to file a petition to abandon the patent before the annuity due date.

The amendments have improved these issues. A patent holder is no longer obligated to pay the outstanding annuity fees. Additionally, the back annuity fee payment must now be made within six months from the issue date, and failure to pay will result in the patent being deemed null and void.  However, a dispensation will be given to a patent holder who has requested a grace period for the annuity payment to the DGIP within 12 months from the time limit of the back annuity fee payment. This request must be filed in writing within seven days before the deadline of the payment of the back annuity. There is a 100 percent penalty fee of the total amount of back annuity fees.

Statement of Ownership

There is now a requirement to submit a Statement of Ownership of an invention, signed by the applicant, when filing a patent application. This requirement was already in place for trademarks and industrial designs, and so this amendment brings patent registration procedures in line with standard practice.

Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge

The amendments require inventions related to and/or derived from genetic resources or traditional knowledge to clearly stipulate the origin of the genetic resources or traditional knowledge in the description. This provision is designed to support Access Benefit Sharing, which refers to how genetic resources are accessed and benefited from.

Patents as Fiduciary Objects

The new Patent Law allows patents to be used as fiduciary objects, such as a guarantee between a debtor and a creditor. Under the previous law, patents could not be used for this type of securitization.

Online Filing

Under the amendments, an online filing system will be introduced to allow applicants to file patent applications on the Internet. At present, an applicant can only file a patent application manually at the DGIP’s office. An online system will simplify the administrative procedures involved in filing a patent application, which should encourage applicants to file a greater number of applications.

Summary

Based on the above, many of the changes under the new Patent Law provide much-needed procedural improvements in Indonesia. For example, the expanded authority of the Appeal Commission provides the opportunity for post-grant oppositions, which is an alternative route to costly and time-consuming invalidations in court. The government has also done well to address the problematic issue of what had previously been deemed “debts” arising from abandoned patents.

While most patent owners will be pleased with these changes, pharmaceutical innovator companies may have concerns about some of the new provisions and their implications. The newly introduced exemptions from infringement, the prohibition on second use medical claims, and the possibility of expanded compulsory licenses could all present challenges for pharmaceutical patent holders.

Given that these amendments are coming into effect on August 28, patent holders will need to ensure that they fully understand the new requirements, review their portfolios, and consider the impact of these changes on any upcoming patent applications.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
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