Tag Archives: FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions about Patent Defences in Indonesia

Patent Invalidity Q: How and on what grounds can the validity of a Patent be challenged? Is there a special court or administrative tribunal in which to do this?   A: Article 130 of the Indonesian Patent Law regulates several grounds to invalidate a Patent. Most notably, an invalidation decision issued by the Court of Commerce or the decision by the Patent Board of Appeal.   According to article 132 of the Patent Law, there are several grounds that can be used to challenge the validity of a registered Patent at the Court of Commerce (It should infringe articles 3, 4 and 7 of the Patent Law – therefore the patent should have not been granted). On the obvious level, a Patent may be susceptible to invalidation if it is not considered novel, does not have inventive steps, or is not industrially applicable. For simple Patents, the plaintiff can simply challenge its novelty and industrial application. On more specific notes, a Patent registration can be challenged if it infringes article 4 (list of the things not considered as inventions) and article 9 (list of inventions that cannot be granted Patents) of the Patent Law.   Another practical invalidation method is to see if the plaintiff has worked its Patent in Indonesia pursuant to article 20 of the Patent Law, which states that a registered Patent must be worked or used in Indonesia to remain in force. Failure to work or use the patent in Indonesia may result in any third party fling for invalidation of the Patent at the court of commerce. However, to date, there has not been any challenge against the non-compliance of article 20 in Indonesia.   Also, a Patent registration may also be invalidated if it fails to disclose the source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge in the Patent description document (see article 26 of the Patent Law).   The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.   Absolute Novelty Requirement Q: Is there an ‘absolute novelty’ requirement for patentability, and if so, are there any exceptions?   A: The Patent Law and the examination guideline issued by the Patent Office adopt the ’absolute novelty’ approach. It simply states that the Patents examined shall only be registered if they are deemed novel – which means there should be no similar or identical invention at the time of fling. However, the Patent Law allows the disclosure of an invention for education research and development purposes for up to six months before the filing date, and even 12 months in the event the disclosure was made due to a trade secret infringement.   Obviousness or Inventiveness Test Q: What is the legal standard for determining whether a Patent is ‘obvious’ or ‘inventive’ in view of the prior art?   A: The patent examination guideline issued by the Patent Office does not stipulate further about the ’obviousness or inventive test’. It simply states that the patents examined shall only be registered if they have inventive steps.   Patent Unenforceability Q: Are there any grounds on which an otherwise valid Patent can be deemed unenforceable owing to misconduct by the inventors or the Patent owner, or for some other reason?   A: The Patent Law does not regulate the unenforceability of a registered Patent owing to misconduct by the inventors or the Patent owner.   Prior User Defence Q: Is it a defence if an accused infringer has been privately using the accused method or device prior to the filing date or publication date of the Patent? If so, does the defence cover all types of inventions? Is the defence limited to commercial uses?   A: The Patent Law also provides an opportunity for a prior user of a disputed Patent to defend itself if that user can prove that the use of the disputed patent does not rely on a specification, claims and figures identical to those of the registered Patent. Nevertheless, the prior use must be recorded at the Patent Office to be officially recognised as such (see article 14 of the Patent Law). Should you need more information regarding Patent defences in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

Frequently Asked Questions about Scope and Ownership of Patents in Indonesia

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…