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​ 

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
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More