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​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More