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

November 20, 2013

Patentability of Computer Programs in Indonesia

Informed Counsel

It has become conventional practice throughout the world for countries with established systems of intellectual property to offer copyright protection for computer programs. Indonesia, for example, provides copyright protection for computer programs for a period of 50 years from the date of first publication.

The general consensus, however, is that copyright protection for computer programs remains weak and inadequate because it protects only the expression in its tangible form of the work, as opposed to its inventiveness. Computer program inventors have therefore sought alternative means to protect their inventions.

Protection through patents has become the most preferred way for inventors to secure IP rights to their computer program inventions. The use of patent protection for this purpose has been fraught with controversy, however, and Indonesia has yet to take a clear stance with respect to the subject matter that is patentable under its Patent Law No. 14 of 2001.

Indonesia’s Patent Law

In Indonesia, computer programs are not explicitly prohibited as patentable subject matter under Article 7 of Indonesia’s Patent Law No. 14 of 2001. However, in a supplemental explanatory section to the Patent Law, it is stated that “Invention does not include: … (4) rules and methods related to computer programs…”

In the midst of this uncertainty and vagueness surrounding Indonesian patent law, many computer program inventions have been successfully filed and patented in Indonesia. Direct claims to computer programs that were granted include, for example, “A computer program written in a computer-readable format, so that processing to manage a wireless network is performed on a computer system, comprising: a management information acquiring step for acquiring management information in the network concerned; and so on.”

The above example of a granted computer program claim in an Indonesian patent corresponds to a granted claim in the corresponding Japanese patent. Notably, however, this computer program claim is excluded from the granted claims of the corresponding U.S. patent and the amended claims of the corresponding European pending application.

In practice, the substantive examination process for computer program patent applications does not differ from that of patent applications in other fields of invention—if the invention is deemed to establish an unobvious difference from its prior art and solve a technical problem, the invention may be granted a patent. The Directorate of Patents allows the claims of the Indonesian patent application to conform to the granted claims of a corresponding foreign patent, in spite of the laws in the other jurisdictions possibly contradicting the current Indonesian law on patenting computer programs.

International Comparisons

The patentability of computer programs varies from country to country. In Thailand, for instance, computer programs are explicitly ineligible to be considered as patentable inventions under Section 9(3) of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979). Likewise, in European Union member states, Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) stipulates that programs for computers shall not be regarded as inventions.

By way of an exception, however, Article 52(3) of the EPC states that “Paragraph 2 [of Article 52] shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject‑matter or activities as such.” Therefore, if the computer program involves a technical feature that solves a technical problem in a non-obvious way, the invention is patentable.

Within this international context, the current practice of Indonesian Patent Examiners appears to be more advantageous to inventors than the practice in many other jurisdictions, although the chance of a successful patent grant still depends heavily on the grant of a corresponding foreign patent. Inventors of computer programs should seek to take advantage of this favorable system by patenting relevant claims in Indonesia. Indeed, a review of recent filing trends would seem to indicate that inventors are pushing ahead in this space, as there has been a growing trend in the number of overseas patent applications being filed in Indonesia during the period of 2010 to 2012 for inventions related to computer programs.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
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
August 25, 2026
Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees. The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest. Scope and Key Provisions Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin. Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas: Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information. Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces. Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches. Personal Data Protection Penalties The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows: Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of
August 25, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) is studying potential new regulatory measures for digital platform services that could significantly expand the country’s digital platform governance framework. The ETDA has already conducted one public consultation session on the proposed measures and will hold additional sessions on August 25 and September 2, 2026, covering five types of platform services under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services B.E. 2565 (2022). The measures under study are preliminary and may be changed based on consultation outcomes. Foundational Measures Applicable to All Platform Types Seven baseline obligations would apply across all digital platform categories: Transparency reports. Platforms must prepare and publish statistical reports on platform governance activities, including the number of content items removed or restricted and appeal outcomes, in a comparable format. Notice and action mechanism. Platforms must establish minimum standards for channels to report potentially illegal content or goods, conduct case-by-case review, provide explanations when content is removed or restricted, and maintain an internal appeals channel. Rights over automated decision-making. Users significantly affected by automated decisions are granted rights to request an explanation, request human review, and contest the decision. Service level agreements (SLAs). Platforms must publish minimum standards for response times, processing timelines, progress notifications, and remedies for incidents on the platform. Labeling of AI-generated content. Content generated or modified by AI must carry visible labels and machine-readable metadata, with exceptions for creative works that disclose AI use in a nonmisleading manner. Prohibition of dark patterns. User interface designs that deceive, coerce, or distort user decision-making are prohibited, including hiding critical information, creating false urgency, or making service cancellation unreasonably difficult. Business user fairness. Platforms must meet minimum standards for the treatment of sellers, workers, and content creators, including advance notice of term changes, explanation of account suspensions or visibility reductions,