FAQs: Scope and Ownership of Patents in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Scope and Ownership of Patents in Indonesia

PatentLeave a comment

Types of Protectable Inventions Q: Can a Patent be obtained to cover any type of invention, including software, business methods and medical procedures?   A: The Patent Law was enacted in 2016 and the government eventually issued the much-anticipated Patent examination guidelines in 2019. The current Law differs from its predecessor in that it does not recognise the patentability of various types of subject matter, such as business methods, computer programs per se, new uses for existing products and new forms of existing compounds.   Article 4(c)(3) of the Patent Law excludes the patentability of business methods. Such patentability can, however, be recognised if the computer-implemented business method has technical character through technical means, as further explained by Annex 3, section 2.4 of the technical guidelines.   Article 4(d) of the Patent Law also excludes the patentability of computer programs. However, computer-implemented inventions are patentable, as described in Annex 3, section 2.1 of the technical guidelines. A computer-implemented invention is an invention that is realised using a medium such as a computer: one or more features of the invention are fully or partly realised by a computer program. The distinguishing feature of a computer-implemented invention is a program feature. A computer program is considered an invention if it involves a technical means such as a computer, server, phone, censors or devices, and when run on a computer, it produces a further technical feature outside normal physical interactions between the computer program (software) and the computer. Computer-implemented inventions can be categorised as process inventions (which include methods) and product inventions (which include systems, devices, computer programs, computer-readable storage media, or a combination of these).   Furthermore, article 4(f)(1) of the Patent Law excludes the patentability of new uses of existing products. This also excludes patentability of second or further medical use, which was previously patentable under the former Patent Law (the previous Patent Law was Law No. 14 Year 2001 on Patents). The Swiss-type second medical use format (previously used as an alternative for method-of-treatment claims that were otherwise not patentable under the previous Patent law) is no longer patentable under the current legislation. Several exceptions are discussed in Annex 1, section 5.2 of the technical guidelines, such as new uses for existing products being patentable when the protection of claims is directed to compound X with the feature of disease Y as a limiting or distinguishing feature. In cases of this kind, the claim protection is intended to allow a pharmaceutical industry body to produce a drug X that is indicated to treat only disease Y. The disease feature must be completely novel and inventive, must not involve the same action mechanism as the prior art and must be supported by clinical trial data, in vivo testing or in vitro testing in the description. The dosing regimen, administration time or frequency, patient group and action mechanism of the drug cannot be the distinguishing feature in product-for-new-use claims. An example of a patentable claim would be ‘compound X for use in treating allergy’, where the prior art indicated compound X for use as a pesticide.   Article 4(f)(2) of the Patent Law excludes the patentability of new forms of existing compounds. Based on Annex 1, section 5.3 of the technical guidelines, new forms include chemical chirality such as enantiomers or diastereomers, crystal forms, solvate forms, hydrate forms, salts, prodrugs and metabolites of existing compounds. Patentability can be acknowledged for new forms that result in meaningful e;cacy improvement, which is further explained in Annex 1, section 2 of the technical guidelines. Meaningful efficacy improvement may include increased bioavailability, improvement in stability, increased solubility, decreased toxicity, improvement in safety, improvement in potency, broader activity spectrum, decreased production cost or decreased treatment period. The meaningful e;cacy improvement should be supported by experimental data.   Article 9 of the Patent Law also further excludes the patentability of methods of examination, treatment, medication or surgery applied to humans or animals. This is further explained in Annex 1, section 6 of the technical guidelines. In vitro, ex vivo and in silico methods of examination or diagnosis are still patentable under this law. Non-therapeutic methods of treatment, such as cosmetic treatments, diet or other non-health-related treatments, are still patentable. In vivo methods of examination, therapeutic methods of treatment, methods of surgery and methods of medication applied to humans or animals are not patentable.   Also excluded in Article 9 of the Patent Law are living organisms. An exception is made for microorganisms such as yeast, fungi, bacteria and actinomycetes. An exception also applies to human cells and plant cells. Embryos, seeds, parts of plants, tissues, organs, transgenic plants and genetically altered animals are not recognised as patentable. New strains should be described specifically and the difference from known strains from the same species should be described for the novelty to be acknowledged. A novel microorganism with a different taxonomy is acknowledged as inventive. In relation to living organisms, patentability for essential biological processes for producing plants or animals is also excluded. Non-biological processes or microbiological processes are, however, patentable. Non-essential biological processes are biological processes that need human intervention, such as plant tissue isolation methods. Microbiological processes are biological processes that include microorganisms, such as fermentation. Artijcial insemination, cross-pollination and other processes that can occur naturally without human intervention are not patentable.   Nucleotides such as DNA, cDNA, primers, genes, vectors or transformants are patentable. Patentable nucleotides are nucleotides in the form of isolated nucleotides. Genes can be characterised by a polynucleotide sequence, an amino acid sequence or a mutation code. Vectors can be characterised by DNA sequence, DNA restriction map, molecular weight and number of base pairs. Transformants can be characterised by one host cell and the introduced gene (sequence). The novelty of gene sequences is examined with basic local alignment search tool (BLAST) searches (used in bioinformatics) or National Center for Biotechnology information databases. Gene sequences are acknowledged as inventive when the se’uence activity is different, at least qualitatively.   Patent Ownership Q: Who owns…

FAQs: Patent Enforcement Proceedings in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Patent Enforcement Proceedings in Indonesia

Patent

Lawsuits and Courts Q: What legal or administrative proceedings are available for enforcing Patent rights against an infringer? Are there specialized courts in which a Patent infringement lawsuit can or must be brought?   A: In Indonesia, Patent owners can enforce their rights against infringers through various legal and administrative proceedings. Some of these proceedings include the following: Civil Lawsuit: Patent owners can file a civil lawsuit against infringers in a commercial court. The court can grant temporary injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies to the Patent owner. However, legal costs cannot be borne by the losing party. Criminal Complaint: Patent owners can file a criminal complaint against infringers with the civil investigator, the Indonesian Police Force, or both. The police will investigate the complaint and, if they find evidence of infringement, can prosecute the infringer. If convicted, the infringer can face imprisonment, a fine, or both.   The commercial courts are responsible for handling Intellectual Property cases in Indonesia, and they have been established in Jakarta, Makassar, Medan, Semarang, and Surabaya to specifically deal with commercial matters, such as bankruptcy and Intellectual Property cases, according to President Decree No. 97 of 1999. However, the judges who preside over Patent infringement matters do not necessarily have the required technical backgrounds. Hence, the presence of expert witnesses in Patent litigation cases is essential. In cases of infringement, the jurisdiction is determined by the defendant’s domicile. If the Patent holder or claimant is located outside Indonesia, the case must be filed with the Commercial Court of Central Jakarta, as specified in article 144 of the Patent Law.   Trial Format and Timing Q: What is the format of a Patent infringement trial?   A: Civil proceedings in Indonesia are conducted in writing and oral arguments. The judges will listen to the oral arguments of each party one at a time, and they rely heavily on the documentary evidence. Witnesses of fact can also provide oral evidence before the court. However, a witness statement or affidavit alone will not be sufficient since it is considered merely supplementary documentary evidence. In general, the procedure of the trial is as follows:   Attendance at the first hearing after the court summons both plaintiff and defendant; Attendance at the second hearing, when the defendant files its response to the plaintiff’s cancellation suit; Preparation of the plaintiff’s reply to the defendant’s response to the suit; Attendance at the third hearing to file the plaintiff’s reply; Attendance at the fourth hearing when the defendant files its response to the plaintiff’s reply; Preparation of the plaintiff’s evidence to be submitted to the court; Attendance at the fifth hearing to submit the plaintiff’s evidence and review the defendant’s evidence; Preparation and filing of the conclusion of the case based on documents and evidence filed with the court by both plaintiff and defendant; Attendance at the sixth hearing on the filing of the conclusion of the case;  Attendance at the seventh hearing to hear the judges’ decision; and Issuance of the court’s decision.   For Patent civil disputes, pursuant to article 145(4) of the Patent Law, the trial can be conducted privately if both parties make requests to the Court of Commerce for the trial to be private. This is to protect the secrecy of processes that would be easily manipulated or improved by a person knowledgeable in the relevant field.   Note that by law the court of commerce must issue its decision within 180 days of the date of filing of the civil suit in Patent matters. However, for criminal actions the process may take longer depending on the complexity of the case and the number of witnesses and evidence presented. However, it typically lasts between six to 18 months.   Unlike in various jurisdictions where there are specialised courts or judges that specialise in Intellectual Property matters, Indonesia does not have such a system. Bear in mind that the court of commerce discussed above also caters to non-IP matters if the dispute is of a commercial nature. Also, the judges do not have science backgrounds – hence the importance of involving expert witnesses during the suit. Expert witnesses may be called upon to provide their opinions on technical or scientific matters that are relevant to the case.   Indonesia has not adopted the jury system, and judges play an important and active role in court hearings. Furthermore, precedents are considered to be merely advisory in nature and they do not have binding legal force as in common law systems.   Proof Requirements Q: What are the burdens of proof for establishing infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of a Patent?   A: As per article 1865 of the Civil Code, the party making the claim is responsible for providing evidence to support it. Therefore, in a Patent infringement case, the claimant must prove that infringement has occurred by showing the evidence.   However, article 145 of the Patent Law allows the reversal of the burden of proof to the defendant in a Patent invalidation lawsuit involving a patented process if: The product resulting from the patented process is new; or The product is suspected of being produced using the patented process, but the Patent holder cannot determine the process used to make the product even after making enough efforts to find out.   A Patent owner holds exclusive rights to exploit their Patent and prevent others from using, making, importing, renting out, delivering, supplying for sale or rental, or conducting any other activity involving the patented product or process. However, in cases involving patented processes where the resulting product is new and the Patent holder cannot determine how the defendant produced it, the burden of proof can be reversed, as per article 145 of the Patent Law. In such cases, the court will require the defendant to prove that their product does not involve a patented process. The judge will also safeguard the defendant’s interests by potentially closing the proceedings to the public.   Standing to Sue Q: Who…

Athlete and Inventor at Once - Why Not? - AFFA IPR

Athlete and Inventor at Once – Why Not?

Patent, Intellectual Property

Professional athletes often understand what needs to be done to improve their performance, whether modifying existing equipment or creating something new. So, their position is not just to use the latest technology created by sponsors but to create their own technology according to their needs. This is also useful for athletes and other sportsmen, including fans who want to experience the sensation.   In the history of sports technology development, dozens of athletes have been involved in the innovation process and registered as inventors in various countries. The following five names could be an inspiration for you: Tony Finau This 6 PGA Tour winner has a unique habit when using his putter. He often uses the back of the club to hit the ball from close range. He even provides an arrow with a certain tilt angle on his Ping PLD Anser 2D putter, making his aim more accurate. Seeing this inappropriate use certainly made the Ping producer feel the need to “talk” with Tony to get feedback. The results led to the creation of a putter prototype that provides the sensation of being hit from behind but still has an attractive design that does not violate the rules.   “Compact Putter Head” (U.S. #11.911.670 B2) Finally, since February 2024, Tony Finau’s name was officially included as the inventor of the Patent Utility for Ping’s “Compact Putter Head” (U.S. #11,911,670 B2), along with Tony Serrano (Ping Design Engineer) and John A. Solheim (Ping President). George Grant A century and a half ago, the sport of golf did not yet know the term “golf tee” or a tool for placing the ball at the starting point of the shot. Uneven sand or grass conditions were harsh and interfered with hitting accuracy until the first African-American avid golfer from Harvard registered the first “Golf-Tee” (U.S. #638,920 A) in America in 1899. “Golf-Tee” (U.S. #638.920 A) Unfortunately, Grant’s wooden tee is not commercialized, so only a few people know about it and use it. Until decades later, William Lowell, who also worked as a dentist, appeared, collaborating with Spalding to produce and promote the “Reddy Tee,” a wooden tee like Grant’s but painted red. Stanley Honey As a Sailing sports navigator since 1992, he has mastered various classes, from Yacht to Catamaran, complete with several fastest finish records, including winning the Newport Bermuda Race in 2022. Stanley, who has a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University, uses the knowledge gained on campus to maximize his sporting activities. Since 2003, he has had a Patent for “Locating an Object Using GPS with Additional Data” (U.S. #657,584 B2). “Electromagnetic Transmitting Hockey Puck” (U.S. #5.564.698 A) He also became acquainted with officials from this sport from leading technology and media companies, including Atari, News Corp, and Fox Corporation. Until 1998, Stanley was trusted to lead Sportvision, a technology company tasked with improving the audience’s experience watching various sports broadcasts on News Corp and Fox. “Electromagnetic Transmitting Hockey Puck” (U.S. #5,564,698 A), which allows TV viewers at home to see more clearly the hockey puck in play, “System for Determining Information about a Golf Club and/or a Golf Ball” (U.S. #6,456 .232 B1) which can show the speed of the ball on the viewer’s screen, and the “System for Enhancing the Television Presentation of an Object at a Sporting Event” (U.S. 5,912,700 A) which allows the viewer to receive real-time information from changes in the sequence of vehicles on racing. Of his total of 30 Patents, eight are related to navigation design systems, while the rest are related to improving the experience of watching sporting events. Charles Smith After retiring, the former National Basketball Association (NBA) player from 1988-1988 was active in the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) Foundation, advising retired basketball players who wanted to change professions to other fields. In 1998, Smith founded New Media Technology Corp., the first company to develop and patent a customizable video ingest application. “System and Method for Computer-Assisted Manual and Automatic Logging of Time-Based Media” (U.S. #8.060.515 B2) This invention, called “System and Method for Computer-Assisted Manual and Automatic Logging of Time-Based Media” (U.S. #8,060,515 B2), makes it easier to provide virtual consultations to everyone who needs them, with limited bandwidth. Smith said that his experience as a player and coach is beneficial in giving these virtual consultations, especially in the post-pandemic era, when people trust the input of a “coach” more than their boss. Van Phillips Phillips lost both legs at the age of 21 in a 1976 water skiing accident. However, he became even more enthusiastic about completing his studies as a Biomedical Design Engineer at the Utah University, United States, and founded his own company, Flex-Foot Incorporated, in 1984. “Prosthetic Energy Storing and Releasing Apparatus and Methods” (U.S. #20.210.259.857 A1) From there, several vital inventions were born, one of which was a light and flexible artificial leg made from carbon fiber, which foreign athletes widely used to excel in the prestigious Summer Paralympics. This Patent, called “Attachment Construction for Prosthesis” (WO #9,318,723 A1), was then developed to give birth to dozens of other Patent derivatives that brought him royalty income.   Whatever job you are in now, you may find a better way to make it easier. If it turns out to be unique, has never existed before, and can also be helpful for many people, immediately register it as a Patent to get more protection and benefits!   Should you need further information about Patent registration in Indonesia and abroad, don’t hesitate to email us at [email protected].

Building-Blocks-of-Creativity-A-Celebration-of-International-Lego-Day-affa-global

Building Blocks of Creativity: A Celebration of International Lego Day

Patent, Intellectual Property

Building Blocks of Creativity: A Celebration of International Lego Day Every January 28, the global Lego community celebrates it as “Lego Day.” On this date, for the first time, Godtfred Kirk Christiansen, the son of a carpenter from Denmark, registered a Patent for his brick toy in 1958. From a brick toy with unique connectors, Lego has developed into a fun educational toy for all ages, collaborating with many Intellectual Properties (IPs), present in some animated films and series, and has 11 amusement parks worldwide. The word Lego comes from the Danish “leg godt,” which means to play well. It was first introduced in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen, father of Godfred. Initially, Lego was a wooden brick toy with unique protrusions and holes to connect and arrange the bricks. However, for economic reasons, since 1947, Lego switched to plastic materials and registered its first Patent in Denmark and other countries in 1958.     Because they understand the importance of Patents as valuable assets but have a limited protection period (only 20 years), Lego as a company continues to innovate so that the products produced can grow and develop not only from the sale of toys but also from royalty income and license.   Apart from Patents, Lego also has other Intellectual Properties such as Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Copyrights. As a toy company, there are still Trademarks that must be protected, product designs that continue to develop, and unique characters that continue to be created to stay ahead of competitors.   Staying ahead is an important keyword. Based on Patents and Designs, the original form of Lego has become public domain, meaning it is no longer protected. So, since the 90s, many companies have emerged that use Lego’s outdated technology and design to make various kinds of similar toys.   However, Lego did not remain silent. Its legal team attempted to shut down competitors’ operations by using Trademark law and suing those who use “brick” and/or “block.” However, these efforts fail due to regulations where there is a provision that states, “Trademark law should not be used to perpetuate monopoly rights enjoyed under now-expired Patents.”   Finally, to continue to exist, Lego continues to present many new characters and Lego sets, with Patents, Industrial Designs, and Copyright protection. Should you need further information about Patent protection, Industrial Designs, Copyright, or other Intellectual Property management, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

专利实质审查实施指南和技术指南综述

Patent, Intellectual Property

专利实质审查实施指南和技术指南综述 技术指南 专利实质审查自申请日起30个月内进行   说明 至少应包括: a. 关于实施本发明的一种方法的说明 b. 如果说明中引用了图形，则应使用与图形中相同的参考信息 c. 关于本发明如何在工业中实施的说明 d. 对发明的简要说明，以便了解本发明 e. 在发明的背景下提及最接近现有技术的技术 所包括的内容如下列顺序所示: 发明技术领域 发明背景 发明简介 图纸简介（如有） 发明详细说明   披露的充分性 说明应当对发明进行明确的披露，以便本领域技术人员能够实施所述发明。 以便公众能够利用本发明，作为回报，应向申请人授予权利。 发明的功能应当予以披露   现有技术背景 发明人应说明在发明的背景中被视为最接近现有如果在检索结果中发现了更接近的现有技术，应在发明的背景中提及最接近的现有技术。 在提及现有技术时，背景应是公平合理的，不应具有误导性。   权利要求 产品权利要求与工艺权利要求的对比 权利要求仅分为两类: 产品权利要求: 适用于物理实体（对象）。产品可能是化合物、设备、系统中设备的组合等。产品权利要求不能通过其使用方法与现有技术区分开来。 工艺权利要求: 适用于活动（方法）。流程可能是生产产品的活动，可能是使用产品的活动，也可能是使用有机体作为主体的活动。   独立权利要求与从属权利要求的对比 独立权利要求 独立权利要求包括寻求保护的发明的所有特征。独立权利要求在内容上不从属于另一种权利要求。 从属权利要求 从属权利要求由独立和/或其他从属权利要求的所有特征组成，并与其所从属的权利要求属于相同的类别。 从属权利要求不得出现以下情况: 与其所从属的权利要求属于不同的类别， 比所从属的权利要求更广泛， 包含所从属的权利要求中不具备的其他特征； 为实现预期目的引用另一权利要求的主题，并且 仅提及所从属的权利要求的一部分。 从属权利要求可从属于多项权利要求。 如果从属权利要求披露先前未描述的特征，独立权利要求应 描述该特征，或者从属权利要求必须优先描述该特征。   工序产品权利要求 工序产品并不仅仅因为它是采用新工艺生产的就具有新颖性。 其新颖性和创造性是通过其自身的产品特征来决定的。   特征 产品权利要求应包含产品特征，工艺权利要求应包含工艺特征。   权利要求的选择 权利要求可能指“和/或”的替代形式，但每种选择应具备相同的基本属性。一种选择必须能够替代另一种选择。   两部分共同构成权利要求（优选形式） 第一部分: 前言，由所述发明的已知技术特征组成 第二部分: 将本发明与需要保护的现有技术进行区分的技术特征。 对于简单专利，所有（有形）产品权利要求及其附属权利要求应分成两部分书写。   权利要求中的数字、图表和参考文献 权利要求不能包含数字或图形，但可以包含表格和数学公式。 为明确起见，可添加涉及数字的符号，并应在括号()之间统一书写。   权利要求中的参数 参数是可以直接测定的产品属性值。除非发明无法用其他方法描述，不允许仅使用参数对产品进行表征。测定方法： 时间太长，无法在权利要求中描述 掌握现有技术的人员知道使用哪种方法，因为只有一种常用的方法。 所有的测定方法得出的结果都是一样的。   一致性 权利要求的书写应该在不同特征之间保持一致，例如：使用现在分词或过去分词，使用主动语态或被动语态。 权利要求应与说明一致 说明应包含与权利要求相同的限定特征。 如果说明中注明某项特征是发明所必需的，该特征必须包括在独立权利要求中。 如果权利要求中未包含说明中的某些实施例，可以扩大权利要求的范围，以包含这些实施例，或者可以从说明中删除这些实施例。 权利要求中使用的所有术语应与说明一致，所有不常见的术语应在说明中定义。   修订 修订不能扩大发明的范围（通过增加主题），但如果其目的是澄清披露的内容，允许修订。Amendment cannot broaden the scope of the invention (by adding a subject matter), but may be allowed if it is intended to clarify the disclosure.   统一性 发明应当具有共同的发明概念。以下独立权利要求的组合可以考虑发明的统一性： a. 专门用于生产该产品的产品权利要求、工艺权利要求； b. 艺权利要求和专门用于实施所述工艺的设备/仪器权利要求；和 c. 产品权利要求，专门用于制造所述产品的工艺权利要求，以及专门用于实施所述产品的制造过程的设备/仪器权利要求。   优先权 针对以下各项授予优先权: a. 巴黎公约或WTO成员国； b. 自优先权申请提交之日起12个月内提出主张优先权的申请； c. 先前的发明应由印度尼西亚申请人提交，或者印度尼西亚申请人作为先前申请人的 d. 合法代理人。 e. 申请应当与先前的发明属于同一发明。 f. 先前的发明应当是该发明的首次申请。 g. 首次申请应向签署巴黎公约的国家或参与世贸组织的国家提出。 化学成分 工序产品权利要求 工序产品权利要求是以工艺特征为主的产品权利要求。在下列情况下，允许提出工序产品权利要求： 无法用产品参数来描述产品。 上述产品具有新颖性。   参数表征产品 在第3.34条中，产品权利要求不应用参数来表征。 当产品不能用其他方法表征时，参数可用于表征产品。 在某些领域，如纳米技术，为了确定以工艺为特征的产品的新颖性，最终产品的参数值可以作为决定新颖性的限制特征。   功能特征产品 功能可以作为决定新颖性和发明步骤的限制特征。 当产品不能用其他方法表征时，功能被用作限制特征。 举一个关于催化剂权利要求的例子，该催化剂只能通过其在工艺中的功能来描述。   参数的测定 如果权利要求披露了参数，权利要求应当明确规定使用何种测定方法来获得该参数。 例如，当权利要求披露MFR（质量流量）作为参数时，认为权利要求不明确，同时ISO 1133:2005规定了MFR的两个测定程序，即：质量测定方法和位移测定方法。 生物 微生物 微生物包括酵母菌、真菌、细菌和放线菌。 微生物包括人体细胞和植物细胞。 清晰度：应采用正确的命名法，品名应写在种名之后。 新颖性：应对新菌株进行具体描述，包括与同一物种的已知菌株的差异。 新物种：以分类和系统发生树描述特征 发明步骤：具有不同分类的新微生物具有独创性。 不可申请专利的发明包括胚胎、种子、植物的组成部分、组织、器官和转基因植物。   非必要生物过程 非必要生物过程是指需要人为干预的生物过程。 例如：植物组织分离方法 不可申请专利的发明包括人工授精、异花授粉和其他可以在没有人为干预的情况下自然发生的过程。   微生物学过程 微生物学过程是利用微生物的生物过程 例如：发酵   核苷酸和基因工程 核苷酸是指DNA、cDNA、引物、基因、载体、转化体。 可申请专利的核苷酸是分离的核苷酸。 新颖性：用BLAST或NCBI检测。 创造性步骤：只要发明步骤至少在性质上具有不同的活动，本发明就被视为具有创造性。 基因可以通过多核苷酸序列、所述多核苷酸编码的氨基酸序列或基因突变来表征。 载体可以通过DNA序列、DNA限制性图谱、分子量和碱基对数来表征。 转化体可以用一个宿主细胞和引入的基因（序列）来表征。   药学 医药发明可采用以下形式: 物理实体 产品或装置和成分构成或化合物 活性: 流程和方法 无限制或无区别的技术特征: 用药方案 给药时间或频率 患者群体   在下列情况下，已知或现有产品的新用途可获得专利:  权利要求的保护旨在将X与“疾病Y”的特征结合起来，作为限制或区分特征。 在这种情况下，权利要求保护旨在使制药工业可生产仅用于治疗高血压的药物X。   药物作用机制 仅定义为作用机制的特征被视为过于宽泛且不可申请专利。 可用作限制/区分特征的“活性或用途”特征是指旨在治疗或预防某些疾病的特征，其功效得到说明书中描述的临床试验数据的证明。   新形态 如果已知化合物的新形式与已知化合物相比没有任何有意义的功效改进，并且没有任何化学结构差异，则不被视为发明。 有意义的疗效改善包括生物利用度、稳定性、溶解度、毒性、效力等方面的改善。有意义的疗效改善需要实验数据的支持。 新形式示例：手性、晶体/溶剂化物/水合物、盐。   治疗方法 体外、离体和计算机检查方法 或诊断方法均可申请专利体内检查或诊断方法不可申请专利。 非治疗性治疗方法可申请专利。治疗性治疗方法不可申请专利。 手术方法 不可申请专利。 直接应用于动物和/或人类的药物治疗方法不可申请专利。   天然药物 当产品本身难以定义时，除了通过工艺特征定义外，允许提出工序产品权利要求：示例：按提取工序定义提取物。 草药产品生产过程中的每一步都影响到产品的质量、安全性和功效。 草药产品制备中的工艺特征可用于确定新颖性和创造性步骤。   电学和物理学 计算机实施发明 计算机实施发明是指利用计算机实施的发明。 本发明的一个或多个特征全部或部分由 计算机程序实现。通过计算机实施发明的特征是指程序特征。在本发明中，源代码不应包括在说明或权利要求中。如果计算机程序具有下列技术特征，视为发明: 有技术手段，例如计算机、服务器、电话、审查器、设备。 当在计算机上运行时，在计算机程序（软件）和计算机之间的正常物理交互之外产生了进一步的技术特征。 分类: 过程方法产品 系统设备产品（计算机程序）计算机可读存储介质   商业方法 只要客体具有技术特征，计算机实施的商业方法即可申请专利。   人工智能 AI和ML基本上是由软件实现的数学模型。技术指南未提及任何关于AI和ML的内容。

특허-실체-심사-시행-지침-및-기술-지침-요약본-affa

특허 실체 심사 시행 지침 및 기술 지침 요약본

Patent, Intellectual Property

특허 실체 심사 시행 지침 및 기술 지침 요약본 기술 지침 특허 실체 심사는 출원 날짜로부터 30개월 이내에 시행됩니다.   설명 최소한 다음 항목이 포함되어야 합니다: a. 본 발명을 수행하는 한 가지 방법에 관한 설명 b. 해당 설명에서 그림을 참조할 경우 그림에서 사용한 것과 동일한 참조를 설명에서도 사용해야 함 c. 본 발명이 업계에서 어떻게 구현되는지에 대한 설명 d. 발명에 관해 이해하기 위한 간략한 설명 e. 발명의 배경으로 가장 가까운 선행 기술에 관한 기술적 언급   다음 순서로 기재: 발명의 기술 분야 발명의 배경 발명에 대한 간단한 설명 도해에 대한 간단한 설명(해당할 경우) 발명에 대한 자세한 설명   충분한 정보 공개 설명에서는 해당 기술을 갖춘 당사자가 언급된 발명을 구현할 수 있도록 해당 발명에 대한 정보를 명확하게 공개해야 합니다. 이는 출원자에게 부여된 권리에 대한 대가로 본 발명을 대중이 활용할 수 있게 하기 위함입니다. 본 발명의 기능을 공개해야 합니다.   선행 기술 배경 발명자는 발명의 배경에 가장 가까운 선행 기술로 간주되는 기술에 대해 명시해야 합니다. 조사 결과 더 가까운 선행 기술이 발견되면 발명의 배경에 해당하는 가장 가까운 선행 기술을 언급해야 합니다. 선행 기술을 언급할 때 그 배경은 정당하고 정직해야 하며 오해의 소지가 있어서는 안 됩니다.   청구항 제품 청구항과 제조방법 청구항 비교 청구항의 범주로는 다음 2가지만 있습니다: 제품 청구항: 물리적 실체(물건)를 다룹니다. 제품은 화합물, 장비, 시스템 내 장비의 조합 등이 될 수 있습니다. 제품 청구항은 그 사용 방법을 통해서는 선행 기술과 구별될 수 없습니다. 제조방법 청구항: 활동(방법)을 다룹니다. 제조방법은 제품을 생산하는 활동, 제품을 사용하는 활동 또는 유기체를 대상으로 사용하는 활동일 수 있습니다.   독립항과 종속항 비교 독립항은 보호가 필요한 본 발명의 모든 특징으로 구성됩니다. 독립항은 다른 청구항의 내용에 따라 달라지지 않습니다. 종속항은 독립항 및/또는 다른 종속항의 모든 특징으로 구성되어 있고 종속되는 모든 청구항과 동일한 범주로 되어 있습니다. 종속항은 다음이 불가능합니다: 종속되는 청구항과 다른 청구항 범주에 속할 수 없습니다. 종속된 청구항보다 범위가 확장될 수 없습니다. 종속된 청구항에 없는 다른 특징이 포함될 수 없습니다. 의도적으로 다른 청구항의 주제를 참조할 수 없습니다. 종속된 청구항의 일부만 참조할 수 없습니다. 종속항은 2개 이상의 청구항에 종속될 수 있습니다. 종속항이 이전에 설명되지 않은 특징을 공개할 경우 독립항은 이 특징을 설명해야 하거나 종속항이 먼저 이 특징을 설명해야 합니다.   제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항 새로운 제조방법으로 생산되었다고 해서 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항(Product by Process Claim)이 새로운 것은 아닙니다. 참신성 및 독창성 단계는 제품 자체의 특징을 통해 결정됩니다.   특징 제품 청구항에는 제품 특징이, 제조방법 청구항에는 제조방법 특징이 포함되어야 합니다.   청구항의대안 청구항은 ”및/또는”과 같은 대안 양식을 언급할 수 있지만 각 대안은 동일한 기본 속성을 갖고 있어야 합니다. 하나의 대안은 다른 대안을 대체할 수 있습니다.   두 부분으로 구성된 양식의 청구항(선호되는 양식) 첫 번째 부분: 앞부분은 이전 기술을 통해 알려진 해당 발명의 기술적 특징으로 구성됩니다. 두 번째 부분: 이전 기술과 구별되는 본 발명의 기술적 특징으로 보호가 필요한 부분입니다. 간이 특허의 경우 모든 (실체가 있는) 제품 청구항과 그의 종속항은 두 부분으로 나뉘어진 양식으로 작성해야 합니다.   청구항의 그림, 그래프 및 참조 청구항에는 그림이나 그래프가 포함될 수 없지만 표와 수학 공식은 포함될 수 있습니다. 보다 명확한 설명을 위해 그림을 참조하는 표기를 추가할 수 있고 이 표기는 괄호( ) 안에 일관되게 작성해야 합니다.   청구항의 매개 변수 매개 변수는 직접 측정할 수 있는 제품의 속성을 나타내는 값입니다. 본 발명을 다른 방법을 사용해서 설명할 수 없는 경우를 제외하고는 매개 변수만 사용해서 제품의 특징을 설명하는 것은 허용되지 않습니다. 측정 방법: 청구항에서 설명하기에 너무 깁니다. 해당 기술을 갖춘 당사자는 일반적으로 사용되는 방법이 한 가지이기 때문에 사용할 방법이 무엇인지 알고 있습니다. 모든 측정 방법은 동일한 결과를 산출합니다.   일관성 청구항 작성은 현재형 또는 과거 분사형 사용, 능동태 또는 수동태 사용과 같이 하나의 특징과 다른 특징 간에 일관되어야 합니다. 청구항은 설명과 일관되어야 합니다. 설명에는 청구항과 동일한 제한적 특징이 포함되어 있어야 합니다. 설명에서 하나의 특징이 본 발명에 필수적이라고 기술할 경우 언급된 특징은 독립항에 포함되어야 합니다. 설명의 일부 실시가 청구항에 포함되지 않은 경우, 이러한 실시를 포함하도록 청구항이 확장되거나 설명에서 이러한 실시가 삭제될 수 있습니다. 청구항에 사용된 모든 용어는 설명과 일관되어야 하며, 모든 일반적이지 않은 용어는 설명에 정의되어야 합니다.   수정 사항 수정 사항으로 (주제를 추가하여) 발명의 범위를 넓힐 수는 없지만 공개 내용을 명확하게 하려는 경우에는 허용될 수 있습니다.   통일성 발명은 동일한 공통 발명 개념을 가져야 합니다.다음 독립항의 조합에 대해 발명의 통일성을 고려할 수 있습니다: a. 제품 청구항, 해당 제품의 제조에 대해 특별히 사용되는 제조방법 청구항 b. 제조방법 청구항 및 해당 제조방법을 수행하도록 특별히 설계된 장비/장치 청구항 c. 제품 청구항, 해당 제품을 제조하는 데 특별히 사용되는 제조방법 청구항, 그리고 해당 제품에 대해 언급된 제조방법을 수행하도록 특별히 설계된 장비/장치 청구항.   우선권 다음에 대해 우선권이 부여됩니다: a. 파리 협약 또는 WTO 회원국 b. 우선권을 청구하는 신청서(우선권 신청서 제출일로부터 12개월 이내에 제출된 신청서) c. 이전 발명이 인도네시아 출원 신청자가 출원했거나 인도네시아 출원 신청자가 이전 출원 신청자의 정당한 대리인이어야 합니다. d. 이전 발명과 동일한 발명에 대한 출원이어야 합니다. e. 이전 발명이 해당 발명에 대한 첫 번째 출원이어야 합니다. f. 첫 번째 출원이 파리 협약 또는 WTO에 포함된 국가에서 또는 해당 국가에 제출된 것이어야 합니다.   화학분야 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항은 제조방법의 특징에 따라 특징지어지는 제품 청구항입니다. 제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항은 다음의 경우에 허용됩니다: 제품의 매개 변수를 사용하여 제품을 설명할 수 없습니다. 해당 제품이 새로운 제품입니다.   매개 변수로 특징지어지는 제품 3.34항에 따르면 제품 청구항은 매개 변수로 특징지어져서는 안 됩니다. 매개 변수는 제품이 다른 수단으로 특징지어질 수 없을 때 제품을 특징짓는 데 사용될 수 있습니다. 나노기술과 같은 특정 분야에서는 제조방법에 따라 특징지어지는 제품의 참신성을 판단하기 위해 최종 제품의 매개 변수 값을 참신성을 판단하는 제한적 특징으로 사용할 수 있습니다.   기능으로 특징지어지는 제품 기능은 참신성 및 독창성 단계를 판단하는 제한적 기능으로 사용할 수 있습니다. 제품이 다른 수단으로 특징지어질 수 없는 경우에 기능이 제한적 기능으로 사용됩니다. 한 가지 예로 제조방법에서의 해당 기능을 통해서만 설명할 수 있는 촉매와 관련된 청구항을 들 수 있습니다.   매개 변수의 측정 청구항이 매개 변수를 공개할 경우 청구항에서 해당 매개 변수를 얻는 데 사용되는 측정 방법을 명확하게 명시해야 합니다. 예를 들어 한 청구항이 MFR(질량 유량)을 매개 변수로 공개하면 불명확한 것으로 간주되는 한편 ISO 1133:2005에서는 질량 측정 방법과 변위 측정 방법이라는 두 가지 MFR 측정 절차를 명시합니다.   생물학분야 미생물 미생물에는 효모, 곰팡이, 박테리아, 방선균이 있습니다. 미생물에는 인간 세포와 식물 세포가 포함됩니다. 명확성: 올바른 명명법으로 특징지어져야 하며, 균주 이름은 종 이름 뒤에 적어야 합니다. 참신성: 새로운 균주는 구체적으로 설명해야 하며, 같은 종의 알려진 균주와의 차이점을 설명해야 합니다. 새로운 종: 분류학 및…

Summary-of-Implementation-Guideline-and-Technical-Guideline-of-Patent-Substantive-Examination-in-Indonesia

Summary of Implementation Guideline and Technical Guideline of Patent Substantive Examination in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

Summary of Implementation Guideline and Technical Guideline of Patent Substantive Examination in Indonesia TECHNICAL GUIDELINE Patent Substantive Examinations are conducted within 30 months from the application date and will focus on the following points:   DESCRIPTION At Least Should Consist of: a. Description regarding one way to conduct the invention; b. If the description refers to figure, it should use the same reference as used in figures; c. Description on how the invention is implemented in industry; d. Brief description of invention for understanding regarding the invention; e. Mention of technology in closest prior art in the background of invention.   Includes in the Following Order: Technical Field of Invention; Background of Invention; Brief Description of Invention; Brief Description of Drawings (if available); Detailed Description of Invention.   Sufficiency of Disclosure Description should disclose the invention clearly, such that those skilled in the art can implement the said invention. This is so that the public can utilize this invention in return for the right granted to the applicant.  The function of the invention should be disclosed.   Prior Art Background Inventor should state what is considered as the closest prior art in the background of the invention. If the search result finds a closer prior art, the closest prior art should be mentioned in the background of the invention. In mentioning the prior art the background should be fair and honest and should not be misleading.   CLAIMS Product Claims vs Process Claims There are only 2 categories of claim: Product Claims: For a physical entity (object). Products may be a compound, an equipment, a combination of equipment in a system, etc. Product claim cannot be distinguished from prior arts through its method of use. Process Claims: For an activity (method). Processes may be an activity to produce a product, an activity which use a product, or an activity which use an organism as a subject.   Independent vs Dependent Claims Independent Claim consists of all features of the invention which protection is sought . Independent claim does not depend in content on another claim. Dependent Claim consists of all features from independent and/or other dependent claim and has the same category as the claim which it depends on. Dependent Claim cannot: belong to a different claim category than the claim it depends on; be broader than the claim which it depends on; contain other features which are not in the claim it depends on; refer to a subject matter from another claim for intended purpose; and only refer to a part of the claim which it depends on. Dependent Claim can depend on more than 1 claim. If a dependent claim disclose a feature which were not described previously, the independent claim should describe this feature, or the dependent claim must first describe this feature.   Product by Process Claims Product by process claim is not novel just because it is produced by a novel process. Its novelty and inventive step are determined through its own product features.   Feature Product claim should contain product features, process claim should contain process features.   Alternative in Claims Claim may refer to alternative forms ”and/or”, but each alternative should have the same basic properties. One alternative must be able to replace another.   Two Parts Form Claim (Preferable Form) First Part: Preamble consisting of technical features of said invention that is known from previous technology. Second Part: Technical features of invention which distinguish the invention from the previous technology and which protection is sought. For simple patent, all (tangible) product claim and the dependent claim thereof should be written in two parts form.   Figures and Graphs and References in Claims Claims cannot contain figures or graphs, but may contain tables and mathematical formulas. For clarity, notation which refers to figures may be added and should be written uniformly between brackets ( ).   Parameters in Claims Parameters are values which are properties of a product that can be measured directly. Characterization of product using only parameters are not allowed unless the invention is unable to be described using other means. Method of measurement: Too long to be described in the claim; Those skilled in the art know which method to use, because there is only one method commonly used; All measurement methods yield in the same result.   Consistency Writing of claims should be consistent between one feature to another, e.g.. using present or past participle, using active or passive voice. Claims should be consistent with the description. The description should contain the same limiting features as the claims. If the description states that one feature is essential for the invention, said feature must be included in the independent claim. If some embodiments in the description are not included in the claims, the claims may be broaden to include these embodiments or these embodiment may be deleted from the description. All terms used in claims should be consistent with the description, all uncommon terms should be defined in the description.   AMENDMENT Amendment cannot broaden the scope of the invention (by adding a subject matter), but may be allowed if it is intended to clarify the disclosure.   UNITY Invention should have the same common inventive concept. Unity of invention can be considered for the following combination of independent claims: a. Product claim, process claim which is specifically used for the manufacture of said product; b. Process claim and equipment/apparatus claim which is specifically designed to conduct said process; and c. Product claim, process claim which is specifically used to manufacture said product and equipment/apparatus claim which is specifically designed to conduct said manufacturing process of said product.   PRIORITY Priority rights are granted for the following: a. Paris convention or WTO member countries; b. Applications claiming priority which is filed within 12 months since the filing date of the priority application; c. Previous invention should have been filed by applicant of Indonesian application, or Indonesian applicant should be a rightful surrogate of the applicant of the previous application;…

AI-A-Threat-to-Our-Intellectual-Property

AI: A Threat to Our Intellectual Property?

Patent, Intellectual Property, Copyright

AI: A Threat to Our Intellectual Property? AI is a branch of computer science that deals with creating intelligent agents, which are systems that can reason, learn, and act autonomously. AI research has been highly successful in developing effective techniques for solving a wide range of problems, from self-driving cars, medical diagnosis, product recommendations, creating articles or songs based on voice collections, and processing very realistic images.   The sophistication of AI also makes the operation of an application no longer need to be done manually. For example, not by carrying out a series of actions or commands via menu clicks but simply by writing down the command, the AI will carry out the operation automatically. However, this sophistication is open to controversy because the basis of AI’s capabilities comes from a collection of data taken without permission from what is already available on the internet. This is undoubtedly dangerous for Intellectual Property.   In general, AI can harm Intellectual Property in the following 3 (three) ways:   1. AI Can Copy Your Work AI can be trained on a massive dataset of text, images, and code. This means that it can learn to reproduce your work, even if you have taken steps to protect it, such as copyrighting it.   2. AI Can Create Derivative Works AI can be used to create new works based on your original work. For example, an AI could be used to create a new painting based on your existing painting.   3. AI Can Use Your Work Without Attribution AI can be used to create new works that do not give you credit for your original work. This can happen if the AI is not properly trained or if the person using the AI does not understand the importance of attribution.   Recognizing the potential for Intellectual Property infringement that AI-based applications can carry, several countries have taken steps to prevent further disputes. Some of these countries are Japan and the European Union.   AI Copyright Protection for Japanese Artists Agency for Cultural Affairs Government of Japan) on May 30th, the statement “Regarding the relationship between AI and copyright” divides AI use into two stages: First Stage AI can be used for research and education purposes without requiring Copyright permission, but this has limitations if it exceeds recognized necessary limits or harms the Copyright holder’s interests.  Second Stage If AI-generated works are published or sold as reproductions and infringe Copyright laws, the Copyright holder has the right to take legal action, potentially leading to criminal penalties.   The document emphasizes strict penalties for Copyright Infringement through AI-generated works that are almost identical or clearly dependent on existing copyrighted works. Japan plans to raise awareness about these issues through seminars and collaborate with legal experts to proactively regulate commercial AI and protect the copyrighted works of Japanese artists and creators.   This approach signifies Japan’s commitment to shield copyrighted creative work, data, and materials from commercial AI use, potentially impacting AI developers and users aiming to exploit stolen art and creative works for profit. The move marks a potential turning point in the fight against Copyright Infringement by AI, providing more vital protection for artists’ Intellectual Property.   In the next article, we will discuss The Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) the European Union’s draft for AI regulation related to the protection of Intellectual Property.   If you need further information regarding the registration and protection of Intellectual Property in Indonesia and abroad, don’t hesitate to contact us via [email protected]. Sources: IBM PC Watch  

Patent-Prosecution-Highway-between-Indonesia-and-South-Korea-affa

Patent Prosecution Highway between Indonesia and South Korea

Patent, Intellectual Property

Patent Prosecution Highway between Indonesia and South Korea Starting this December, the Indonesian Patent Office (DGIP) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) began implementing the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program. This program aims to ensure that South Korean companies entering Indonesia can obtain Patent Examinations more quickly, from 40 months to just 18.4 months.   This KIPO PPH collaboration with DGIP is the 10th Bilateral PPH after previously collaborating with IMPI (Mexico – July 1, 2012), IPOPHL (Philippines – May 1, 2015), TIPO (Taiwan – July 1, 2015), EAPO (Eurasia Patent Office – January 1, 2019), IPVN (Viet Nam – June 1, 2019), SAIP (Saudi Arabia – July 1, 2019), INPI (Brazil – April 1, 2020), and MyIPO (Malaysia – December 1, 2020 ), INPI (France – September 1, 2022). It is called Bilateral PPH because it is still a pilot program, before finally becoming Global PPH, as has been implemented in IP5 countries (China, Japan, USA, & EU) and other 24 countries, such as the UK, Singapore, Australia, and Russia.   The Basic Concept PPH  Where an Office of First Filing (OFF) has assessed the patentability of a Patent Application, an Office of Second Filing (OSF) offers the Applicant accelerated examination for the corresponding Application, provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions include sufficient correspondence in the claims of the two applications and the search and examination results of an OFF being made available to an OSF.   Under the PPH program, the examination results of an OFF are used to expedite the application process in an OSF, thereby reducing the workload and improving patent quality. If deemed patentable by an OFF, the corresponding application is filed in advance for accelerated examination in an OSF.   This PPH program is divided into two categories: PPH using the National Work Products and PPH using the PCT International Products from the KIPO. The following are the procedures for each category:   1. PPH using the National Work Products from the KIPO Applicants can request accelerated examination by a prescribed procedure including submission of relevant documents on an application filed with the DGIP and satisfies the following requirements under the DGIP-KIPO Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program based on the KIPO application.   When filing a request for the PPH pilot program, an applicant must submit a request form to the DGIP.   The offices may terminate the PPH pilot program if the volume of participation exceeds a manageable level, or for any other reason. Ex Ante notice will be published if the PPH pilot program is terminated. The PPH pilot program will be in effect for three (3) years commencing on 8 December 2023 and will end on 8 November 2026. However, the program may be extended after a joint DGIP – KIPO review and assessment of the program implementation.   Requirements a. Both the DGIP application on which PPH is requested and the KIPO application(s) forming the basis of the PPH request shall have the same earliest date (whether a priority date or a filing date). For example, the DGIP application (including the PCT national phase application) may be either: an application that validly claims priority under the Paris Convention from the KIPO application(s) except for a complex priority. Example: A. Paris Route B. PCT Route C. PCT Route – Domestic Priority D. Paris Route – Complex Priority E. Paris Route – Divisional Application F. PCT ROUTE an application that provides the basis of a valid priority claim under the Paris Convention for the KIPO application(s) (including PCT national phase application(s)). Example: A. Paris Route   B. PCT Route a PCT national phase application where both the DGIP application and the KIPO application(s) are derived from a common PCT international application having no priority claim. Example: A. Direct PCT Route B. Direct PCT & Paris Route C. Direct PCT & PCT Route D. Direct PCT & PCT Route   b. Patent applications have been initiated in the Office of the KIPO or the DGIP. Patent applications belong to a patent family of which at least the earliest application was filed with the DGIP or the KIPO acting as a national office. The DGIP application which validly claims priority direct PCT applications is also eligible. Example: A. Paris Route BUT the First Application is from the Third Country B. PCT Route BUT the First Application is from the Third Country c. At least one corresponding application exists in the KIPO and has one or more claims that are determined to be patentable/allowable by the KIPO. The corresponding application(s) can be the application that forms the basis of the priority claim, an application derived from the KIPO application that forms the basis of the priority claim (e.g., a divisional application of the KIPO application or an application that claims domestic priority to the KIPO application, example:   or a KIPO national phase application of a PCT application.  Example: A. PCT Route B. Direct PCT Route C. Direct PCT & PCT Route D. Direct PCT & PCT Route Claims are “determined to be patentable/allowable” when the KIPO examiner identifies the claims as patentable/allowable in the latest office action, even if the application is not granted for patent. The office’s action includes: Decision to Grant a Patent Notification of Reasons for Refusal Decision of Refusal Appeal Decision For example, if the following routine expression is described in the “Notification of Reason for Refusal” of the KIPO, those claims are clearly identified to be patentable/allowable. “<Claims which has been found no reason for refusal> At present for an invention concerning Claim, no reason for refusal is found.”   d. All claims on file, as originally filed or as amended, for examination under the PPH must sufficiently correspond to one or more of those claims indicated as patentable/allowable in the KIPO. Claims are considered to “sufficiently correspond” where, accounting for differences due to translations and claim format, the claims in the DGIP are of the same or similar scope as the claims in…

A-No-Nonsense-Guide-to-Patent-Annuity-Payment-in-Indonesia-affa-global

A No-Nonsense Guide to Patent Annuity Payment in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

Are you wondering when to pay those critical Patent Renewal fees in Indonesia? Please read the following to learn the important deadlines.   Timing is Everything: When Do Those Renewal Fees Kick In? Indonesia’s calculation of renewal due dates is actually pretty straightforward. We are not just talking about the inaugural renewal due date but all future ones as well.   Here’s the kicker: No annuities are due while your Patent is still in the application process. Your first payment becomes due 6 (six) months after the Patent grant date (you can always refer to the Notice of Allowance issued by the Indonesian Patent Office). And that payment isn’t just a one-off; it covers all the annuities that would have been due while your application was still pending – it’s a back-payment of sorts.   For instance, if your Patent was granted on February 1, 2023, you must settle the first annuity payment by August 1, 2023, to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). Please note that the granted Patent will be deemed withdrawn/invalidated if the payment deadline is missed.    Yearly Renewals Explained Once you have settled that first payment, let’s keep the ball rolling. Every year, one month before the anniversary of your original filing date, another annuity will knock on your door.   To paint a clearer picture: If you initially filed your Patent on November 9, mark your calendar because all subsequent renewals must be settled by October 9 each year.   Should you have any questions about Patent annuity payments in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected].   Source: Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents (Patent Law)