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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation