Latest WIPO Indicators 2025: Indonesia’s Rising! - AFFA IPR

Latest WIPO Indicators 2025: Indonesia’s Rising!

Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

Indonesia demonstrated notable activity and substantial growth across various Intellectual Property (IP) domains in 2024, particularly in Utility Models (UM), Industrial Designs, and Trademarks, according to the World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 report.   Indonesia is classified as an upper-middle-income economy. Its IP performance often reflects a surge in filings, especially when compared to other countries in similar income brackets or neighboring regions.   Patent Activity   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 Indonesia’s IP Office significantly advanced its global standing in Patent Applications in 2024: Office Ranking: Indonesia rose one place to 17th among the world’s top 20 IP Offices. Application Volume and Growth: The Indonesian IP Office received 10,902 patent applications in 2024. This total represented a 3.3% growth rate from 2023. Growth Drivers: The overall growth was primarily driven by Non-Resident Applications, which contributed 2.9 percentage points to the total growth, while Resident Applications contributed 0.4 percentage points. Non-Resident Dependence: Applications filed by Non-Resident Applicants accounted for a significant share of activity, making up 79.0% of total applications received by Indonesia’s IP Office. Origin of Non-Resident Filings: Applicants residing in Japan held the largest share of Non-Resident Filings in Indonesia, accounting for 23.6% of those applications. Patent Grants: In 2024, Indonesia granted 5,812 Patents. Similar to applications, Non-Resident Grants dominated, representing 89.3% of all Patents Granted.   Simple Patents or Utility Models (UM) Performance   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 Indonesia stands out globally as a major source of utility model filings: Origin Rank and Volume: Applicants residing in Indonesia filed 4,842 UM applications in 2024, ranking Indonesia as the 4th largest origin worldwide! Growth Rate: Indonesia recorded a double-digit growth rate of +10.9% for UM applications by origin in 2024 compared to 2023. Trend: As a middle-income country, Indonesia saw a substantial increase in the volume of UM filings over the recent decade.   Trademark Activity   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 In Trademark filings, Indonesia showed strong domestic growth but displayed comparatively low intensity relative to its population size: Office Ranking and Volume: Indonesia ranked 15th among the top 20 offices for Trademark Application class counts in 2024, receiving 166,118 counts. Growth Driver (Office): The Indonesian office experienced a total growth rate of 9.0% in Trademark application class counts (2023–2024), overwhelmingly driven by resident applications, which accounted for 8.6 percentage points of the increase. Origin Growth: As an origin, Indonesia recorded a considerable Trademark filing increase of +8.4% in 2024, which was driven by growth in both resident filing and applications filed abroad. Filing Intensity (Per Capita): Indonesia recorded one of the lowest ratios of resident Trademark application class counts per million population, ranging between approximately 350 and 730 classes per million population in 2024 (specifically, 353 per million population). Industry Focus: The Indonesian IP Office, along with those in China, India, and Viet Nam, reported the lowest share of applications related to service classes (ranging between 28% and 32%), indicating a focus on goods. Specifically, the share of services classes in Indonesia was 28.3%. Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025   Registration Class Counts: The Indonesian office recorded 154,751 registration class counts in 2024. Trademarks in Force: A total of 897,580 trademark registrations were actively in force in Indonesia in 2024.   Industrial Design Activity   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025   Indonesia was a leader in application design growth in 2024: Office Growth: Indonesia’s office reported one of the largest growth rates among the top 20 offices, posting an increase of 25.3% in Application Design counts in 2024. This increase was primarily driven by resident applicants, who contributed 15.5 percentage points to the growth. Indonesia ranked 18th in total Application Design counts, receiving 7,926 counts. Origin Growth: Applicants residing in Indonesia recorded a pronounced increase in Industrial Design counts by origin, growing by +18.9% in 2024. Filing Intensity (Per GDP): Indonesia had a notably low ratio of resident design count per USD 100 billion of GDP, standing at 141. Designs in Force: The average age of design registrations in force in Indonesia was 4.5 years in 2024, the lowest reported among selected offices. Development Level: Indonesia was situated close to the typical trend line when comparing resident application design count per capita against GDP per capita (2020–2024), suggesting its design activity level is consistent with its economic development level.   Geographical Indications (GI)   Indonesia reported 182 Geographical Indications in force in 2024. All of these GIs were protected through a national sui-generis system, meaning 100% of the GIs in force were designated as National GIs.   Comparison of Indonesia’s IP Performance with Selected Peers (2024) To better understand Indonesia’s performance, the table below compares its key metrics with other major upper-middle-income economies (Brazil, Türkiye) and regional neighbours (Thailand, Viet Nam, Philippines), focusing on application volumes and growth across Patents, Utility Models (UM), Trademarks, and Industrial Designs, as well as IP filing intensity relative to GDP.   IP Indicator Indonesia Brazil Türkiye Thailand Viet Nam Philippines Income Classification Upper Middle Upper Middle Upper Middle Lower Middle Lower Middle Upper Middle Patent Apps (Office Total) 10,902 (Rank 17th) 25,597 (Rank 11th) 10,351 (Rank 18th) 8,727 9,904 4,571 Patent Apps Growth (Office) 3.3% 0.9% 18.4% 1.4% 4.7% –6.5% UM Apps (Origin Rank/Volume) 4th (4,842) 10th (3,047) 9th (3,126) 5th (4,227) 19th (675) 13th (1,659) UM Apps Growth (Origin) 10.9% 27.1% –7.0% 10.2% 12.1% –15.7% Trademark Apps (Office Class Count) 166,118 (Rank 15th) 468,667 (Rank 5th) 399,023 (Rank 7th) 73,552 126,733 (Rank 18th) 67,868 Trademark Apps Growth (Office) 9.0% 9.7% 0.1% 12.8% 8.6% 4.1% Design Apps Growth (Office) 25.3% 27.3% –16.6% 19.4% 20.2% 40.1% Resident Design Count per $100B GDP 141 142 1,387 340 N/A N/A   Key Comparative Insights   Patent Focus: Indonesia demonstrated resilience in its overall Patent Application growth (3.3%) and achieved a higher office ranking (17th). However, Indonesia remains highly dependent on non-resident filings (79.0% non-resident share), particularly from Japan (23.6%). In contrast, Viet Nam (9,904 applications) achieved faster overall Patent growth (4.7%), while Türkiye saw the highest…

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

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

Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

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: 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. 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: Integrated Circuit Layout Designs (Law No. 32/2000) Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Law No. 20/2016) Industrial Designs (Law No. 31/2000) 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)

Expediting Your Patent Application in Indonesia: The DGIP–JPO Patent Prosecution Highway

Patent, Intellectual Property

In the race for innovation, speed is everything. According to statistical data published by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), among the ASEAN6 Patent Offices (the six ASEAN countries with the highest Patent rankings), the Directorate General of Intellectual Property of Indonesia (DGIP) is recorded as the office with the shortest total pendency—meaning the duration from filing to grant—at only around 3.4 years. In contrast, other ASEAN Patent Offices generally remain in the range of 4.5 to 7 years. This figure aligns with Indonesia’s ongoing efforts to accelerate examination, including through the utilization of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) scheme.   What is even more interesting is that, as the only office implementing PPH with all ASEAN6 Patent Offices, the JPO serves as a strategic gateway for Applicants seeking protection across the ASEAN region. The JPO reports the following statistics: The time to obtain a patent grant in Japan through the fast-track route can be achieved in approximately 4.9 months; and Patent grants in ASEAN Offices through the PPH scheme can be achieved in around 1 year, with grant rates exceeding 90%.     In addition to illustrating examination performance, JPO’s data also shows that the PPH route with DGIP as the Office of Later Examination (OLE) has been actively utilized by international Applicants. Since the program’s initiation in 2013, the number of PPH requests designating DGIP as the OLE has consistently remained in the hundreds per year, reaching a peak in 2019. Although the numbers later declined, they have re-emerged significantly in 2024. This indicates that the DGIP–JPO PPH scheme is not merely a procedural option on paper, but a pathway genuinely used by global businesses when entering the Indonesian and ASEAN markets.   Given this background and the fact that DGIP records the fastest total pendency among the ASEAN6, Applicants can structure the following two-step strategy: Designate Japan as the primary examination hub, either as the first filing country or as the International Searching Authority (ISA/JP) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT); and Utilize the PPH scheme for accelerated access to ASEAN, with Indonesia as a key destination given its comparatively shorter time to grant.   This combination creates a highly compelling narrative for businesses and technology owners. The JPO provides fast and high-quality examination at the “upstream” stage, while DGIP offers one of the fastest routes to grant in the “downstream” ASEAN region. For companies that view ASEAN as a growth market, this combination can significantly reduce risks and shorten timelines in the patent application process.   Number of PPH requests with DGIP as the Office of Later Examination (OLE) per PPH application year. Source: Japan Patent Office (JPO), “PPH Statistics.”   How Does the DGIP–JPO PPH Actually Work?   In simple terms, the PPH is a cooperative framework between Patent Offices that allows one Office to rely on the search and examination results produced by another. In essence, patent examination under the PPH can be accelerated at DGIP by leveraging the examination work products issued by the JPO.   Institutionally, the DGIP–JPO PPH scheme did not emerge overnight. The trial phase of the DGIP–JPO PPH program was first launched in 2013 as an effort to test the use of JPO examination results to expedite the process in Indonesia. As utilization increased and positive responses were received from Applicants, the cooperation was extended multiple times. Under the latest agreement, the DGIP–JPO PPH program has been renewed once again and will continue until 2026. These periodic extensions indicate that the PPH is considered successful by both Offices—reducing examination burdens on one side while providing a stable acceleration route for Applicants on the other.   According to DGIP’s official guidelines, the DGIP–JPO PPH scheme is divided into two categories:   1. PPH Based on JPO National Work Products Under this scheme, a PPH request is filed for a patent application that has already entered DGIP, by referring to its corresponding application at the JPO. The main requirements for filing a PPH request under this scheme include: The application at DGIP and the corresponding application at the JPO that forms the basis of the PPH must share the same earliest date (whether a priority date or filing date), either through the Paris Route or the PCT Route. The earliest application in the patent family must have been filed at either DGIP or the JPO as a national office. At least one JPO application must have claims that have been determined to be patentable/allowable, as reflected in a Decision to Grant, Notification of Reasons for Refusal, Decision of Refusal, or Appeal Decision. All claims submitted for examination under the PPH at DGIP must “sufficiently correspond” to the claims considered patentable/allowable at the JPO—that is, the claim scope must be identical, similar, or narrower through the addition of limiting features supported by the specification. A PPH request can only be made if DGIP has not yet begun substantive examination of the application.   2. PCT-PPH Based on PCT International Work Products (WO/ISA, WO/IPEA, IPER) In this scheme, in addition to national work products, the guidelines also provide for PCT-PPH. Here, the basis for acceleration is no longer the JPO’s national office actions but the JPO’s international work products in its capacity as: WO/ISA – Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority WO/IPEA – Written Opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority IPER – International Preliminary Examination Report   The main requirements include: The latest International Work Product must indicate that at least one claim is patentable/allowable with respect to novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. The DGIP application and the corresponding PCT international application must share the same earliest date (whether through national phase entry, priority basis, or as a derivative/divisional). All claims filed at DGIP must “sufficiently correspond” to the claims considered patentable/allowable in the relevant International Work Product.   PPH MOTTAINAI Beyond the two main pathways above, the JPO has also introduced the concept of PPH MOTTAINAI. In simple terms, “mottainai” in Japanese conveys a sense of regret when something…

[Reminder] Indonesia - Patent Working Statement to be Submitted Before 31 December 2025 - AFFA IPR

[Reminder] Indonesia – Patent Working Statement to be Submitted Before 31 December 2025

Patent, Intellectual Property

All Patent Owners in Indonesia are reminded to submit their Patent Working Statement or ‘Statement of Use’ no later than 31 December 2025 or before the date of the annuity deadline. This requirement applies to all Granted Patents and is mandated under the latest amendments to Indonesia’s Patent Law. Failure to comply may result in legal consequences, including compulsory licensing and/or invalidation.   Previously—and still applicable—Article 20 of the Patent Law has regulated the obligation to implement Patents in Indonesia as follows:   Product Patent: Obligated to manufacture, import, or license the product. Process Patent: Obligated to manufacture, license, or import the product resulting from the patented process. Method, System, & Use Patents: Obligated to manufacture, import, or license the product resulting from the method, system, or use.   Obligation to Implement Patents in Indonesia   In this third amendment, Article 20A has been added to the Patent Law, stipulating that every Patent holder is required to submit a declaration of Patent use in Indonesia and report it to the Minister through the Directorate General Intellectual Property (DGIP) at the end of each year, accompanied by proof of implementation. The implementation of the Patent may be carried out either by the Patent holder or by a third party under license from the Patent holder. The objective of this provision is to encourage technology transfer, investment, job creation, and tangible economic growth for Indonesia.   Forms of Patent implementation may include: Manufacturing the patented product but it has not been commercialized yet; Manufacturing the patented product and it has already been commercialized; Utilizing the patented process but it has not been commercialized yet; Utilizing the patented process and it has already been commercialized; Importation; and Licensing.   Consequences of Non-Implementation of Patents In this latest amendment, provisions regarding consequences such as compulsory licensing or Patent revocation, which were previously regulated under Articles 82 and 130 of the Patent Law, have been removed.   Instead, the annual reporting obligation as stipulated in Article 20A serves as an instrument for the government to monitor Patent utilization in Indonesia.   Although administrative sanctions for non-compliance with the reporting obligation are not explicitly regulated yet, this obligation opens the possibility for the government to issue further implementing regulations or administrative policies in the future.   Acceptable Reasons for Delayed Implementation Previously, the Patent Law allowed Patent holders to provide legitimate reasons for not yet implementing their Patent, such as:   Force majeure circumstances. Regulatory or licensing obstacles to production. Production is still in preparation stages.   In the amended Patent Law, although these reasons are no longer explicitly listed, Patent holders may still include such reasons in their annual reports as part of the explanation or justification in cases where implementation has not been optimal.   You might also want to read: 5 Stages of Patent Registration Process in Indonesia   Should you need further information regarding the submission of Patent Working Statement in Indonesia, please contact us through the channels below: ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   About AFFA: Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals. For more information, please visit: www.affa.co.id.

When Science Meets Beauty: The Patent Strategies Behind Cosmetic Innovation in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

When Science Meets Beauty: The Patent Strategies Behind Cosmetic Innovation in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Patent

In an era when the definition of “beauty” is no longer a matter of taste but the result of scientific research and business strategy, Patents act like invisible fences protecting the technological gardens behind every cosmetic product. During the protection period, the inventor enjoys a time-limited monopoly, while the public still gains access to the underlying technology through mandatory disclosure. This exchange — between exclusive rights and knowledge transparency — makes Patents a valuable currency that can be licensed, negotiated, or leveraged for funding. Today, competition in the cosmetics industry extends not only to retail shelves but also to the lines of Patent claims.   Aesthetics Built by Science Discussing cosmetics means examining aesthetics shaped by science. As the market grows, so does formulation complexity. In the past, innovation stopped at creams, gels, and lotions. Now, the landscape extends to clear nanoemulsions, multi-lamellar emulsions mimicking the stratum corneum, and anhydrous solids designed for extremely dry skin. The trend of “skincare from within” has even blurred the line between cosmetics and pharmaceuticals through oral formulations. Yet, across all these evolutions, Patents serve as the locking mechanism of value — covering ingredients, carriers, system designs, and process parameters that make a product cosmetically elegant without losing efficacy.   New Value from Familiar Ingredients Names like hyaluronic acid, niacinamide, and ceramide are now household terms among consumers. As Patent Originators, the core molecular Patents behind these ingredients have long expired. However, in the hands of formulators, their role continues through formulation innovation. The new wave of Patents no longer revolves around what the ingredient is, but how it works — from delivery systems that improve penetration and comfort, to crystalline structures enhancing stability, and formulations that maintain transparency and a lightweight feel. The commercial value has shifted — and it is the “how” that is now fenced by claims.   Four Key Patent Claim Pathways in Cosmetics For formulation teams, four categories of claims hold the most value: Composition – e.g., the ceramide:cholesterol:free-fatty-acid ratio and the Hydrophilic–Lipophilic Balance (HLB) system. Process – such as the shear profile, number of passes in high-pressure homogenization, or the cooling curve. Use/Application – for instance, reducing Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL), the amount of water naturally evaporating from the skin. Crystalline Architecture – which prevents precipitation and preserves sensory elegance, the tactile and aesthetic pleasure perceived by the senses. As long as these variables are measurable and reproducible, they can form legitimate new claims.   From Laboratory to Store Shelf Behind every claim like low-oxidation foundation, non-sticky moisturizer, or 12+ hour moisture-lock serum, there are scientists meticulously determining the right range of composition and process: Too little — ineffective. Too much — irritating; Incorrect pH — destabilizes the system; Wrong mixing order — triggers precipitation. Finding that optimal balance is the essence of invention. If it meets the criteria of novelty, inventiveness, and industrial applicability, it becomes a patentable invention. Often, what’s patented isn’t the substance itself, but the precise orchestration — ratios, droplet sizes, temperature, homogenization pressure, and crystallization kinetics.   Excipients: The Unsung Heroes In modern cosmetics, excipients — inactive ingredients that maintain stability and enhance performance — play a crucial role. Because the dosage of active ingredients is often limited by regulations, formulators rely on excipient architecture: Humectants to draw moisture, Emollients for smoothness, Surfactants for dispersion stability, Polymers to control viscosity and texture. Techniques like high-pressure homogenization, ultrasonication, and cooling control are now treated as scientific variables, not just production methods. When these protocols deliver measurable benefits — increased hydration, reduced TEWL, improved barrier function — the process itself transforms into an intellectual property asset.   The Ceramide Case: Between Stability and Sensation Take ceramide — a lipid that locks in moisture within the stratum corneum. Formulating it to be stable, pleasant, and effective is no small feat. Patent WO2023076537 (by L’Oréal) enhanced ceramide load without heaviness. Patent WO2024215106 stabilized specific crystalline forms to prevent precipitation. Patent WO2024167206 created transparent nanoemulsions with a light sensory feel. Patent WO2023048329 developed solid oil-dispersed formulations for extremely dry skin. The differentiation lies not in what is used, but in how it’s engineered. National strategies differ, too: China focuses on speed, volume, and diverse combinations — fitting its dynamic mass market. Japan emphasizes material precision, crystal form, and purity — for cleaner, longer-lasting formulas. Korea excels in sensorial design and lamellar architectures — gentle on sensitive skin and clinically tested. Three approaches, one goal: stable, effective, comfortable, and claimable innovation.   Indonesia’s Opportunity: Utility Models for Cosmetic Innovation Under Indonesia’s Patent Law, Utility Models require only novelty and functional improvement, without the complex inventive step demanded by regular Patents. This opens opportunities for incremental cosmetic innovations — adjustments in component ratios, crystal forms, or carrier/dispersant designs — to gain fast and affordable protection for local formulations. However, it’s a double-edged sword. Savvy companies can build Patent Thickets — a web of overlapping Patents to secure valuable combinations — while others risk losing protection over similar innovations. That’s why an Intellectual Property strategy is crucial: deciding when to file, when to publish defensively, and how to keep innovation space open.   From Lab Bench to Legal Strength In practice, Utility Models can extend protection through solid scientific data — such as evidence of reduced TEWL, improved hydration, or chemical stability. These data not only strengthen Patent claims but also narrow competitor movement while reinforcing brand positioning. At the same time, this mechanism encourages local downstream innovation, allowing domestically developed formulations to be protected and commercialized faster.   Regulatory and IP Synergy Remember: Product Registration Approval from the Indonesian National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) and Compliance Certification with Good Manufacturing Practice for Cosmetics (CPKB) ensure that a product is safe and high-quality, but they do not grant exclusive rights. Regulatory clearance doesn’t guarantee freedom from infringement. The best approach is to comply with regulations while reinforcing Intellectual Property protection. This dual strategy ensures a company is not only legally safe but also strategically secure — with…

When Private Tech Goes Public: The Opening Chapter of SEP Litigation in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

When Private Tech Goes Public: The Opening Chapter of SEP Litigation in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Patent

In recent years, the global conversation about Patents has shifted from who invented first to who controls the standard. Behind the arrival of 5G on our phones, Wi-Fi in every public space, and USB-C as a universal port, lies a term that increasingly dominates Intellectual Property discussions: Standard Essential Patents (SEP). This is no longer merely about exclusive rights, but about access to technology and the governance of the global digital industry. Indonesia may not yet be the main arena for SEP disputes, but several cases—such as Nokia’s Patent disputes in the Commercial Court—signal that this issue is no longer confined to Europe or the United States. When a company’s Patent has been adopted as part of a global technical standard, the question becomes more complex: how should its license be opened? Should there be a “public interest” limitation under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms? Unlike disputes in the pharmaceutical or life sciences sectors that often revolve around novelty, indication, or public domain, SEP issues introduce new dimensions: standardization, access, and interoperability. A Patent does not only protect technology—it can determine who may enter the market, and under what conditions.   Indonesia’s First SEP-Related Case The first SEP-related case in Indonesia emerged in 2015 between PT Polarchem, PT Garuda Tasco International, PT Star Metal Ware Industry, and PT Golden Agin against the holder of Patent IDS0001281. Patent IDS0001281 was registered as a Utility Model, describing the technical specifications of a sprayer, filed on 31 May 2012. The Utility Model closely resembled an Indonesian National Standard (SNI) established in 2018, which governed the criteria and testing methods for electric backpack sprayers. The Patent Holder objected to the enactment of SNI 8485:2018, arguing that it infringed on the Patent and refused to license the technology—an action that clearly violated the FRAND principle for inventions adopted as national standards. Initially, the Patent Holder won before the Central Jakarta Commercial Court (Decision No. 75/Pdt.Sus-Paten/2015/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, 30 June 2016). However, upon judicial review, the Supreme Court (Decision No. 147 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2018) determined that Patent IDS0001281 lacked technical novelty, ruling that the Utility Model was not new, and subject to cancellation.   The Nokia SEP Cases Another major development involved four cases between Nokia Technologies Oy and mobile phone assemblers or distributors in Indonesia. These cases demonstrated consistent SEP argumentation patterns. Nokia mapped its telecommunications Patent claims to specific 3GPP Technical Specifications adopted under Indonesia’s standardization framework. The first group involved 3G/UMTS Patents related to HSDPA 64QAM, covering efficient data packaging methods for faster transmission. Nokia referred to 3GPP TS 25.212, which defines UMTS multiplexing and channel coding, arguing that any 3G-compliant phone inherently implements the patented features. The second group concerned 4G Patents, referencing 3GPP TS 36.212 (v8.8.0) on multiplexing, channel coding, and mapping to physical channels in LTE. The claims covered methods for transmitting antenna configuration information using a bit mask—allowing synchronization between the user equipment (UE) and base stations (WTS), thereby improving data transmission. Since this specification forms part of global LTE standards (including in Indonesia), Nokia argued that any LTE device compliant with TS 36.212 necessarily performs the patented steps and thus requires a valid FRAND license. All groups referred to the ETSI definition of “essential”, which states that an IPR is considered essential if, on a technical (not commercial) basis, and given the state of the art during standardization, it is impossible to make, sell, or operate compliant equipment without infringing that IPR. Patent Holders must therefore submit an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Information Statement and irrevocable Licensing Declaration, agreeing to license under FRAND terms—preserving exclusivity, but balancing it with fair and non-discriminatory access.   Contractual and Institutional Dimensions The contractual dimension was reinforced through Nokia’s global and local licensing history, used to demonstrate its FRAND commitment and non-discriminatory practices. Disputes typically arose when existing licenses expired and renewal negotiations failed, leaving subsequent product distributions outside the licensing scope. At this stage, familiar SEP debates emerged: Was the FRAND offer economically fair and reasonable? Was there any discrimination? Who acted in good faith—the willing or unwilling licensee? And what remedies were proportionate—monetary compensation or injunctions? Expert testimony regarding the necessity of TS 36.212 for LTE devices supported the “implementation of standard = implementation of claim” reasoning typical in cross-border SEP disputes. Institutionally, 3GPP itself is a collaborative project among global standards organizations (ETSI in Europe, ATIS in the U.S., ARIB/TTC in Japan, TTA in Korea, CCSA in China, and others). Thus, 3G/4G/5G standards are collective products, not proprietary to a single developer. ETSI provides IPR policies and declaration procedures, not a license pool. Consequently, the prevailing commercialization model is bilateral FRAND licensing, though optional license pools exist in certain sectors. All four cases referred explicitly to the ETSI IPR Policy and 3GPP Working Procedures (particularly Article 55 on early IPR disclosure), emphasizing that: Technical contributions may contain essential IPR; Such IPR must be disclosed as early as possible; and Licenses must be available on FRAND terms to any willing implementer to ensure public interoperability.   Lessons and Legal Implications Together, these four cases represent Indonesia’s first publicly visible chapter in SEP litigation. The plaintiffs explicitly linked Patent claims to 3GPP Technical Specifications, affirmed ETSI declarations and FRAND commitments, and connected them to domestic device certifications as inferential proof of implementation. For industry players, the lesson is clear: When private technology “graduates” into a public standard, Patent rights remain—but they are burdened with access obligations under FRAND. Conversely, implementers gain access to standards but must negotiate in good faith for valid licenses. In the 5G/IoT horizon, similar disputes will likely intersect with competition law and cross-jurisdictional coordination (including anti-suit injunction issues). Thus, compliance playbooks—covering standard-to-claim mapping, negotiation documentation, and economic reasonableness assessments—should be prepared from the outset.   Reassessing Essentiality In evaluating such cases, it is critical to resist the assumption of “automatic essentiality.” As noted by Yi Yu et al. (2024), an effective defense begins by testing whether the disputed Patent is truly essential to the relevant standard or merely directed…

[Policy Insight] Free from Tariffs for U.S. Brands to Indonesia — Why Trademark Protection Is Your First Move - AFFA IPR

[Policy Insight] Free from Tariffs for U.S. Brands to Indonesia — Why Trademark Protection Is Your First Move

Intellectual Property, Trademark

A new trade agreement between the United States and Indonesia, announced by President Donald J. Trump, marks a turning point for U.S. businesses eyeing Southeast Asia. The key highlights:   Full market access for U.S. goods—no tariffs, no non-tariff barriers. Indonesia commits to purchasing $15 billion in U.S. energy, $4.5 billion in agricultural goods, and 50 Boeing jets. A 19% tariff remains on Indonesian goods entering the U.S.   What Does This Mean for U.S. Brand Owners?   Indonesia, with over 280 million consumers, is now one of the most accessible emerging markets for U.S. companies. But while opportunity is ripe, first-mover advantage goes only to those who protect their brands early.   Seamless Market Entry, But Not Without Risk Lower costs and fewer trade barriers mean U.S. brands in fashion, beauty, tech, F&B, automotive and lifestyle can expand into Indonesia faster than ever. However, this also means faster exposure to copycats. Register Your Trademark Before Someone Else Does Indonesia follows a first-to-file Trademark system. That means anyone can register your brand name if you haven’t already—and legally block your business. Early registration isn’t just a legal formality; it’s your strongest business shield. Expect Counterfeits & Trademark Squatters With increased visibility comes increased risk. Unauthorized sellers, counterfeiters, and opportunistic squatters often rush to register well-known foreign brands locally. Once they do, legal recovery becomes costly and time-consuming.   Secure Your Brand Now—Not After the Damage Is Done This trade deal opens the floodgates—but only for brands that are protected. Don’t let your U.S. success be undermined overseas. Register your Trademark in Indonesia before launching your products or entering into distributor agreements.   Need help protecting your Trademark in Indonesia? Book a free 15-minute call with our professional consultant:   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

Indonesia Joins the Riyadh Design Law Treaty - AFFA IPR

Indonesia Joins the Riyadh Design Law Treaty

Industrial Design, Intellectual Property

On July 8, 2025, Indonesia officially signed the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (RDLT), joining a growing number of countries committed to modernizing global design protection. This historic treaty was adopted earlier on November 22, 2024, at a WIPO Diplomatic Conference in Riyadh, following nearly two decades of negotiations.    With over 190 participating countries and 18 signatories on day one, the RDLT represents a significant milestone in international IP harmonization, aiming to streamline and simplify the procedural aspects of Industrial Design registration worldwide. The active participation of countries like India (which ratified the treaty in November 2024) and now Indonesia, underscores a strong regional commitment to future-ready IP infrastructure.   What the Treaty Introduces: Streamlined & Smart   With Indonesia’s accession reinforcing the treaty’s growing global significance, the RDLT introduces a unified, flexible framework for Industrial Design registration. It eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy and offers practical tools for navigating the digital era. Key features include: Standardized filing requirements, capped to a reasonable and predictable list. 12-month grace period for disclosures prior to filing—beneficial for creators who share designs publicly before formal registration. Multiple-design applications, allowing several designs to be filed in one submission. Flexible representation formats such as drawings, photographs, and digital media. Deferred publication of up to six months, helping manage confidentiality. Procedural safeguards like relief for missed deadlines and simplified renewals. Support for electronic filing systems and cross-border data exchange.   These measures aim to empower not only large corporations, but also SMEs, startups, and individual designers navigating the increasingly interconnected global market.   A Global Movement Backed by Regional Leaders As of the adoption date, the following 18 countries signed the RDLT: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central African Republic, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Gambia, Ghana, Lebanon, Morocco, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Moldova, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.   India followed shortly thereafter, signing and ratifying the treaty on November 26, 2024. With Indonesia joining on July 8, 2025, ASEAN’s largest economy signals its readiness to align domestic regulations with global standards—an important step for attracting design-driven investment and protecting creative industries across Southeast Asia.   Why the RDLT Matters for IP Stakeholders   The treaty’s adoption is more than a procedural update—it’s a strategic response to the evolving needs of the design economy: Greater consistency in design registration processes worldwide. Enhanced access for smaller players through reduced red tape. Recognition of digital realities, including electronic filing and digital design formats. Flexibility for national values, such as optional disclosures on traditional cultural expressions or traditional knowledge. Improved legal certainty, with clear deadlines and grace provisions that support creators in fast-moving industries.   For businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions, the RDLT brings long-overdue clarity and efficiency—crucial for accelerating go-to-market strategies and safeguarding innovation.   The Road Ahead   The RDLT will enter into force three months after 15 contracting parties deposit their instruments of ratification. Given the pace of recent accessions—including major economies like India and emerging creative markets like Indonesia—that threshold may be reached within the next 12 to 24 months.   Now is the time for designers, legal professionals, and IP-focused businesses to prepare. Understanding and adapting to the RDLT’s framework will be critical to staying competitive in a global design economy.   At AFFA Intellectual Property Rights, we’re tracking this landmark treaty rollout closely. Our team helps international clients assess their readiness, align procedures with the Riyadh standards, and embrace new IP filing strategies. If you’re a designer, brand owner, or business innovator looking to secure your design rights globally, reach out to explore how AFFA can support your international IP roadmap.   Need help protecting your Industrial Design in Indonesia? Book a free 15-minute call with our professional consultant:   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   Source: World Intellectual Property Organization

Indonesia and China Forge Strategic Copyright Alliance to Strengthen Global IP Protection - AFFA IPR

Indonesia and China Forge Strategic Copyright Alliance to Strengthen Global IP Protection

Copyright, Intellectual Property

In a major step toward deeper international IP collaboration, the Government of Indonesia and the People’s Republic of China have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to enhance cooperation in the field of Copyright and related rights. The agreement was formalized during the sidelines of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) General Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 8, 2025.   This landmark MoU, signed between Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights and China’s National Copyright Administration, marks a pivotal moment in the bilateral IP relationship between two of Asia’s largest creative economies.   Responding to the Challenges of a Digital World   “This MoU represents a new chapter in our countries’ commitment to protect creativity in an increasingly borderless digital era,” said Minister of Law Supratman Andi Agtas. “It is more than an agreement—it’s a framework for resilience, cooperation, and innovation.”   At its core, the agreement focuses on strengthening Copyright enforcement, building institutional capacity, and fostering mutual promotion of the creative and cultural industries. Both countries have recognized the need for joint responses to transnational Copyright infringement, especially amid the rise of digital piracy and the development of generative AI.   Key Areas of Cooperation   Under the MoU, Indonesia and China will collaborate in the following areas: Exchange of legal and technical information on Copyright and related rights. Joint training programs for staff and professionals. Promotion of cross-border creative and cultural exchange. Facilitation of relations between Collective Management Organizations (CMOs). Public awareness campaigns to elevate IP education   Crucially, both parties agreed to develop annual work plans, appoint official contact points, and organize practical engagements—ranging from seminars and workshops to policy dialogues on emerging Copyright issues.   A Strategic – Soft Power Approach   While the MoU is non-binding, its strategic impact is significant. It reinforces Indonesia’s broader vision of positioning Intellectual Property as a tool of cultural diplomacy, especially within the fast-evolving global IP landscape.   The MoU will remain in effect for five years, with an option to renew for another term. Both countries may revise the agreement through mutual written consent, ensuring flexibility in addressing future challenges and opportunities.   As global stakeholders watch with growing interest, this Indonesia-China partnership sends a clear message: International Copyright cooperation is no longer optional—it is essential!   At AFFA Intellectual Property Rights, we support stronger international IP cooperation like the Indonesia–China partnership. Whether you’re expanding into Indonesia or managing IP across Asia, our consultants are ready to guide you.   Need help protecting your Copyright in Indonesia? Book a free 15-minute call with our professional consultant:   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property

Can You Protect a Furniture Design in Indonesia? Absolutely! - AFFA IPR

Can You Protect a Furniture Design in Indonesia? Absolutely!

Intellectual Property, Industrial Design

Do you think designs are just for fashion or gadgets? Think again. When people hear the term “Industrial Design,” they often think of phone cases, handbags, or consumer electronics. But in Indonesia, protection for Industrial Design extends far beyond tech and fashion. From minimalist lounge chairs to futuristic bathtubs and even ornate lighting fixtures, furniture and home décor are eligible for protection under Indonesia’s Industrial Design Law.   For interior, furniture, and lifestyle brands targeting Southeast Asia’s largest consumer market, registering your designs isn’t just possible — it’s essential.   Why Furniture Design Matters in Indonesia   Indonesia has seen a steady rise in Industrial Design awareness and filings over the past five years. Applications climbed from 2,319 in 2017 to a record-breaking 3,533 in 2022. This growth reflects not only increasing local awareness but also foreign interest in protecting design assets in one of Asia’s most dynamic markets for manufacturing and retail.   As consumer tastes evolve and visual identity becomes a powerful sales driver, furniture designers need to protect what sets their products apart: shape, contours, lines, textures, and aesthetics.   Tips to Get Your Furniture Design Approved   Despite the growing support for design protection, improperly submitted applications are still rejected, often due to technical errors in how the design is presented. The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has strict guidelines for how Industrial Design applications should be illustrated.   If you’re filing a furniture design (or any large, 3D product), follow these 8 key visual submission rules to avoid costly rejections:   Avoid Mixed Features Don’t combine multiple styles, colors, or versions in a single design submission.  Use a Neutral Background Design representations must be shown on plain, uncluttered backgrounds — no textures, shadows, or staging. Exclude Irrelevant Elements Only the intended design should appear. Remove props, logos, or any decorative items not part of the design. Submit One View Per Image Provide one clear view per image: front, back, left, right, top, bottom, and perspective. No composites or collages. Upload Magnified Views Separately If you include zoomed-in details, upload them as individual images, not overlays. Disclaim Unregistered Features If some elements of your design aren’t meant to be protected, disclaim them consistently across all views. Show the Full Product Too If you’re submitting disassembled components (e.g., parts of a modular chair), include a full assembled version. For 2D Patterns, Show Them Alone If your design is a surface pattern (e.g., wood grain or textile texture), don’t show it applied on furniture — submit it as a stand-alone flat image.   Bottom Line: If It Has Shape, It Can Be Filed Whether you’re a boutique design studio or a global interior brand, protecting your creations in Indonesia gives you more than just legal peace of mind — it gives you the competitive edge. With over 270 million potential customers and a vibrant, design-conscious market, the value of your visual IP only increases over time.   Have a new piece ready for market? Make sure your design documents are clean, compliant, and enforceable — before someone else copies your style.   Need help filing your design in Indonesia? Book a free 15-minute call with a registered Industrial Design consultant and ensure your design meets all local requirements:   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889