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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More