Mediation as a Strategic Solution: Transforming the Way Indonesia Resolves Intellectual Property Disputes

Indonesia is increasingly positioning Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, as a leading strategy for resolving Intellectual Property (IP) disputes. This approach prioritises faster, more efficient, and non-confrontational solutions—aligning with a restorative justice philosophy that focuses on preserving business relationships and safeguarding the commercial value of a brand or creative work.

 

The Institutional Framework: DGIP’s Role

 

The primary governmental body facilitating IP mediation in Indonesia is the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), which operates under the Ministry of Law. Within the DGIP’s Directorate of Law Enforcement, the Subdirectorate of Prevention and Alternative Dispute plays a central role in managing these non-litigious processes.

 

The Working Team for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Tim Kerja Penyelesaian Sengketa Alternatif) within this Subdirectorate is responsible for receiving and processing requests for mediation or facilitation. This team organises the mediation proceedings, including scheduling and communication, and its members act as neutral mediators. The sources note that the DGIP currently has 7 mediators within the Subdirectorate of Prevention and Alternative Dispute, alongside 29 mediators specialising in IP across the 29 Regional Offices of the Ministry of Law.

 

Data from 2021 to 2025 indicates that the team handles disputes involving various IP types, including Copyright, Trademarks, Patents, and Industrial Designs.

 

Legal Basis: Mandatory vs. Voluntary Mediation

 

The resolution of IP disputes in Indonesia can generally be pursued through ADR, arbitration, or the Commercial Court (Pengadilan Niaga). However, specific IP laws dictate whether mediation is mandatory or optional before pursuing other legal avenues.

 

When Mediation is Mandatory

 

For certain types of disputes, mediation must be pursued first:

1. Copyright:
   Except for disputes involving piracy, if the parties are known and located within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, they must first attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation before proceeding with a criminal lawsuit.
2. Patents:
   In cases involving criminal prosecution for infringement of a Patent or Simple Patent, the parties must first resolve the issue through mediation.

 

When Mediation is Optional

 

For several other IP types, mediation is an option alongside arbitration or other forms of ADR:

1. Integrated Circuit Layout Designs (Law No. 32/2000)
2. Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Law No. 20/2016)
3. Industrial Designs (Law No. 31/2000)
4. Trade Secrets (Law No. 30/2000)

 

The Mediation Process and Requirements

 

The process is managed by the Working Team for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Mediation can be conducted either Offline or Online. To initiate the process, the applicant for mediation is required to submit several administrative documents:

• A formal letter of application for Mediation.
• The identities of the Parties and/or their legal proxies.
• The addresses of the Parties.
• A brief summary description of the Intellectual Property dispute.
• Any other necessary supporting documents.

Crucially, if the applicant is the party allegedly committing the IP infringement, they are not required to attach proof of Intellectual Property ownership.

 

Core Principles Guiding IP Mediation

 

The effectiveness of mediation rests on several key principles designed to ensure fairness, trust, and autonomy:

 

Principle	Description
Voluntary	The parties must agree voluntarily to mediation, with no coercion to attend, negotiate, or reach a settlement. The outcome should genuinely reflect the will of the parties.
Confidentiality	All information, documents, and statements shared during mediation are confidential. They cannot be used as evidence in court without the explicit agreement of the parties, which encourages honest dialogue.
Mediator Neutrality	The mediator must remain impartial and cannot hold any personal interest in the outcome of the dispute. This is vital for maintaining the trust of both sides.
Equality of Parties	All parties are considered equal, regardless of perceived strength. They possess the same right to be heard, and the mediator must ensure no party is dominated or pressured.
Openness and Good Faith	Parties are expected to be open in presenting facts and demonstrate a sincere intention to seek a resolution (good faith). Good faith is essential for achieving a sincere and lasting agreement.
Justice and Benefit	The settlement reached should be fair and provide benefits to both parties. The aim is a “win-win solution,” ensuring no party is disproportionately harmed.
Party Autonomy	The mediator’s role is strictly facilitative; they do not issue a ruling. The ultimate decision to agree, reject, or postpone a settlement rests entirely with the parties themselves.

 

Advantages of Choosing Mediation

 

Mediation is highly encouraged as an ADR mechanism due to the significant advantages it offers compared to traditional litigation:

• It achieves a fast and efficient resolution.
• It is cost-effective.
• It helps maintain good relationships between the disputing parties.
• It inherently seeks a Win–Win Solution.
• It allows for flexibility in solutions, accommodating unique needs.
• It helps preserve reputation and public image.
• It encourages legal awareness and compliance.
• It reduces the burden on law enforcement agencies and the courts.

 

Challenges and the Restorative Approach

 

Despite its benefits, the mediation process can face practical difficulties. Parties may be hindered by geographical distance or difficulties in arranging a common time to meet. For Online Mediation specifically, a key challenge is the lack of technological infrastructure to facilitate the signing of settlement documents by parties located far apart.

 

The DGIP views mediation not merely as a procedural alternative, but as a mechanism rooted in restorative justice. The underlying philosophy suggests that many IP disputes arise from lack of understanding rather than malicious intent. By providing a structured, neutral platform, mediation serves as “a bridge to restore, not punish,” and aims to “build back trust, not destroy it,” thereby supporting effective and efficient IP law enforcement.

 

Should you need more information on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Intellectual Property Disputes in Indonesia, contact us through the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation!

 

📩 E-Mail : [email protected]

📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812

💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

 

Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP)