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

October 18, 2021

Proposed Amendments to Indonesia’s Patent Law

Subscribe to Updates

In August 2021, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) of Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights held a virtual session on the draft revision of Patent Law No. 13 of 2016 to apprise relevant stakeholders of the draft amendments and maintain transparency in the drafting process. The Patent Law is being amended to correspond with the Job Creation Law (Law No. 11 of 2020), which requires adjustments to regulations to bring them in line with international standards, balanced with national interests. One of the purposes of the Job Creation Law is to speed up and simplify business processes, so the proposed amendments to the Patent Law aim to support this objective.

The draft update to the Patent Law contains a number of notable changes, as laid out below.

Computer programs

Under both the current law and the draft law, computer programs are not considered inventions and thus cannot be patented. However, the draft law does allow computer-implemented inventions and computer-related inventions, while specifying that computer programs by themselves are not allowed.

Discoveries

The draft law allows patents for a new use of an existing product or for a new form of an existing compound that significantly increases efficacy and has no related chemical structural differences from the known compound. This allowance will be particularly advantageous for inventions related to second medical uses.

Application grace period

The draft law increases the time allowed for filing a patent application to 12 months after the disclosure of the invention (from the current grace period of six months). This longer allowance will especially benefit researchers and inventors who require scientific publication of their research results as well as patent protection.

Patent implementation by other parties

The draft law allows implementation of a patent not only in terms of production, but also through granting permission to other parties, such as through transfer and licensing. This change aims to bring the draft law in line with the TRIPS Agreement, which holds that patent owners have the right to assign, license, or transfer (by succession) their patents.

Statement of patent implementation in Indonesia

Previously, there was no requirement to provide a statement of patent implementation in Indonesia, but an annual statement is mandated in the draft law. Even if the patent is not implemented in Indonesia, a statement must still be provided to the DGIP at the end of each year.

Statement of origin for genetic resources and traditional knowledge

A proposed amendment in the draft law requires patent applications related to genetic resources or traditional knowledge to be accompanied by a statement of origin. This statement is meant to replace the currently required validation or verification letter from an appointed institution, because currently there is no designated institution to verify the origin of genetic resources.

Late filing of applications claiming priority rights

While previously no delay has been allowed, the new draft states that applications claiming priority rights that have missed the 12-month deadline may still be filed within four months of the deadline with an additional fee. In other words, it is possible to file patent applications claiming priority rights up to 16 months from the priority date.

Refiling

The draft law states that an application deemed withdrawn because it was not accompanied by the necessary formality documents may be filed again for an additional fee. However, the specific rules and timeframe for this are still unclear.

Substantive examination timing

One proposed amendment encourages acceleration of substantive examination by stipulating that substantive examination will take place after a request for it is filed. This is different from the current practice, under which substantive examination takes place after the end of publication period. In addition, a new provision allows applicants to request (at the time of filing or at the publication stage) a preliminary substantive examination.

Thus far, acceleration of a patent application in Indonesia has only been possible through a patent prosecution highway (PPH) request, limited to a corresponding Japanese patent application. Under the draft law, applicants can request acceleration of substantive examination after the completion of the publication period, subject to a fee. Requirements and timeframe for this are still unclear.

Repeat substantive examination

A new provision in the draft law introduces the concept of repeat substantive examination of Indonesian patent applications, whereby a patent owner who wants to review a substantive examination decision or make a change or addition to the granted claim can request a reexamination. This reexamination request can only be made for applications that have been granted, and must be filed within six months of the grant decision.

Appeals

The draft law retains the current appeal window to the Patent Appeal Commission of three months from issuance of a rejection notice, but adds that rejection of a request for repeat substantive examination can also be appealed to the Patent Appeal Commission, following this same timeframe. In addition, if the Patent Appeal Commission issues a further rejection notice, a lawsuit can be filed with the Commercial Court. The draft law states that a lawsuit against the decision of rejection from the Patent Appeal Commission can only be filed after the examination and final decision from the Patent Appeal Commission.

Compulsory licensing

A new provision in the draft law holds that a compulsory license will be ended if within two years the licensee cannot prevent the implementation of patent in a way that is detrimental to the public interest. In other words, the license will be canceled after two years if the licensee fails to secure implementation or allows ineffective implementation (such as ineffective production of drugs under a compulsory license, resulting in the supply remaining inadequate and the price too high).

Government use of patents for imported pharmaceutical products

The draft law allows the government to implement the patent for a pharmaceutical product for treatment of diseases in humans if the product cannot be produced in Indonesia.

Outlook

The objective of the draft law is to encourage the implementation of patent protection and services that are innovative, responsive to public needs, and in line with international developments. The draft law is expected to be finalized next year, as it has been included in the 2022 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas). Once it is passed, the resulting law will modernize aspects of Indonesia’s patent system in line with government priorities.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More