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​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More