New Year, New Patent Annuity Payment in Indonesia is Due - AFFA IPR

New Year, New Patent Annuity Payment in Indonesia is Due

Patent, Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

As the year draws to a close, business owners and inventors typically focus on closing their books, evaluating performance, and planning business strategies for the coming year. However, for Patent owners, there is one crucial aspect that is often overlooked: Patent Annuity, namely the maintenance of Patent rights through the payment of annual fees.   No matter how strong an invention is or how great its commercial potential may be, Patent rights can lapse solely due to administrative negligence.   Patent Protection Is Not Automatically Protected for the Protection Duration Many Patent owners assume that once a Patent certificate is issued, the exclusive rights will automatically remain in force until the end of the protection period. In reality, Patent protection in Indonesia is conditional. This means that the validity of a Patent depends on the fulfillment of legal obligations, one of which is the payment of annual maintenance fees.   This obligation applies to both Patents (with a protection term of 20 years) and Simple Patents/ Utility Models (with a protection term of 10 years), both calculated from the filing date of the application.   What Is a Patent Annual Fee? A Patent Annual Fee—also commonly referred to as a Patent Maintenance Fee (Patent Annuity)—is a fee that the Patent holder MUST pay up to the final year of the protection term. This annual fee constitutes Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP). It is imposed in accordance with Government Regulation No. 28 of 2019 on the Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.   The fee consists of a Basic Fee, plus an additional Fee per Claim. If the fee is not paid within the prescribed time limit, the Patent will be declared revoked.   To prevent such revocation, Indonesian Patent Law provides the following rules:   Payment of the First-Year Patent Maintenance Fee The first maintenance fee must be paid no later than 6 (six) months from the date the Patent certificate is issued. This payment covers the annual fees calculated from the filing date up to the year the Patent is granted, plus the annual fee for the following year.   Payment of Subsequent Annual Maintenance Fees Subsequent annual maintenance fees must be paid no later than 1 (one) month before the anniversary date of the filing date for the next protection year. For example, if your Patent application was filed on 9 November, the annual maintenance fee will fall due every 9 October.   Options in Case of Late Payment If, for any reason, you are unable to pay the maintenance fee on time, you can still pay the annuity to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) through a registered and reliable Patent Consultant, but there will be a penalty on the official fees of 100% and it can only be paid up to 6 months from the deadline.     Consequences of Failure to Pay If you fail to pay the maintenance fee—either by the original due date or after the granted extension—the DGIP will invalidate or cancel your Patent registration. This means that you will lose all official legal protection for your invention in Indonesia.   Why Is the End of the Year the Right Time for Evaluation? The year-end period is a strategic moment to: Inventory all Patents owned; Confirm the payment status of annual fees; and Align Patent management with the budget for the coming year.   For Patent portfolio owners, this evaluation also helps determine: Which Patents remain commercially relevant; and Which Patents should be maintained or deliberately allowed to lapse.   A Simple Checklist for Patent Owners As a practical guide, the following points should be reviewed toward the end of the year: The active status of each Patent; Annual fee due dates; The amount payable based on the protection year; The use or licensing status of the Patent; and The accuracy of Patent holder data (name, address, legal entity).   These simple steps often make the difference between a Patent that remains protected and one that lapses unnoticed. By staying informed and complying with the applicable rules, you can ensure that your Patent remains valid and fully protected in Indonesia for its entire 20-year term (or 10-year term for Simple Patent or Utility Model).   Should you need further information regarding the payment of Patent Annuity fees in Indonesia, please contact us directly through the following channels and get a FREE 15-minute consultation:   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

A Complete Guide to Filing a Patent Appeal in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

A Complete Guide to Filing a Patent Appeal in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

In the practice of Patent registration in Indonesia, not all applications result in the grant of a Patent. It is not uncommon for applicants to face rejections, corrections to the description and claims, or even objections to Patent grant decisions. To ensure fairness, accuracy, accountability, and public trust in the Patent protection system, the law provides a legal mechanism in the form of a Patent Appeal Application through the Patent Appeal Commission.   The Patent Appeal Commission serves as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism outside of litigation, allowing applicants or interested parties to obtain an independent and objective reassessment of the previous examination results. This mechanism also ensures consistency and technical specialization, as the examination is conducted by a panel consisting of Senior Patent Examiners and subject-matter experts.   The Patent Appeal Commission as a Dispute Resolution Option The Patent Appeal Commission provides a mechanism for: Independent review Non-litigation dispute resolution before escalation to court Assessment based on the principles of: Fairness and accuracy Accountability and trust Consistency and specialization Accordingly, the Patent Appeal Commission acts as a guardian of the quality of national Patent decisions.   Legal Basis for Filing a Patent Appeal Pursuant to Article 67 of Law Number 65 of 2024, a Patent Appeal must be submitted in writing to the Patent Appeal Commission and is subject to a fee for appeals against: Rejection of a Patent Application Corrections to the description, claims, and/or drawings after the Patent has been granted Patent grant decisions   The parties entitled to file a Patent Appeal are the Applicant or their Authorized Representative, as well as any other interested party or their Authorized Representative.   Types of Patent Appeal Applications Appeal Against Rejection of a Patent Application Rejection of an application includes situations where: The invention fails to meet the requirements of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, Article 24 paragraph (3), Article 25 paragraphs (3) and (4), Article 26, Article 39 paragraph (2), Articles 40 and 41 of Law No. 13 of 2016; or In the case of a Simple Patent (Utility Model), the invention fails to meet the requirements of Articles 121 and 122 paragraph (1). Appeal Against Corrections Corrections after a Patent has been granted are limited to: Restriction of claim scope Correction of translation errors in the description Clarification of ambiguous or unclear descriptions Appeal Against Patent Grant Decisions Patent grant decisions include cases where: The invention is deemed to have complied with Article 54 and Article 24 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2016; or In the case of a Simple Patent (Utility Model), the invention is deemed to have complied with Articles 121 and 122 paragraph (1).   Time Limits for Filing a Patent Appeal (As regulated under Articles 68–70 of Law No. 65 of 2024) Appeal against rejection of the application: Must be filed within 3 months from the date the rejection notice is issued. Appeal against corrections after Patent grant: Must be filed within 3 months from the date the Patent Approval Notice is issued. Appeal against Patent Grant: Must be filed within 9 months from the date the Patent is officially granted.   Appeal Forms and Required Documents The appeal form can be downloaded from the official Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) website and must be accompanied by the following mandatory documents: A detailed written explanation of the appeal reasons Supporting evidence and legal arguments Proof of payment Copies of the disputed Description, Claims, and Drawings Rejection or Patent grant notification letter Copies of the originally submitted Description, Claims, and Drawings Copies of all substantive examination correspondence Power of Attorney (if filed through an Attorney/Representative)   Permissible Grounds for Filing a Patent Appeal The appeal must not contain new inventions or broaden the scope of protection, and must be presented in: A clear correction matrix A complete explanation of objections to the Patent grant decision   Examination by the Patent Appeal Commission Every Patent Appeal Application must undergo: Administrative examination Substantive examination   For this purpose, the Chairperson of the Patent Appeal Commission forms an odd-numbered Appeal Panel, consisting of: Senior Patent Examiners with the rank of ‘Pembina Utama Muda.’ Subject-matter experts in accordance with technical requirements.   Authority of the Patent Appeal Commission The Commission has the authority to: Summon the Applicant, Patent Holder, and Examiner Summon witnesses and experts Conduct further and on-site examinations Request additional evidence Issue decisions on Patent appeal applications   Decision of the Patent Appeal Commission Is determined based on the results of substantive examination Is pronounced in an open court session for the public Is recorded and announced by the Minister Is officially delivered to the parties or their Authorized Representatives   Legal Actions After the Patent Appeal Commission Decision After the Patent Appeal Commission decision is pronounced and delivered to the parties, two legal consequences may arise: If the appeal is granted, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) is obligated to implement the decision in accordance with its ruling, whether by continuing the patent grant process, conducting the ordered corrections, or validating the disputed Patent. In this case, the Patent dispute is deemed administratively resolved. If the appeal is rejected, the interested party retains the right to pursue further legal remedies through a lawsuit before the Commercial Court. This constitutes the litigation stage, which may be pursued if the applicant believes the Appeal Commission’s decision still infringes upon their legal rights. Accordingly, the Patent Appeal Commission functions as the final administrative safeguard before a patent dispute proceeds to judicial litigation.   Should you need further information regarding Patent Appeal Applications in Indonesia, please 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

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…

Indonesia Joins the Riyadh Design Law Treaty - AFFA IPR

Indonesia Joins the Riyadh Design Law Treaty

Intellectual Property, Industrial Design

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

Industrial Design Filing in Indonesia: Local Licensed IP Consultant Required for Foreign Applicants - AFFA IPR

Industrial Design Filing in Indonesia: Local Licensed IP Consultant Required for Foreign Applicants

Intellectual Property, Industrial Design

If you’re considering Indonesia for Industrial Design protection, there’s one crucial fact you can’t afford to miss: Indonesia is not a member of the Hague Agreement. That means no international shortcut—and no room for error when it comes to choosing a reliable local partner.   For many IP holders, the Hague Agreement provides a streamlined route to securing design rights in multiple jurisdictions through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). But Indonesia is not party to the Hague Agreement under either the 1999 Geneva Act or the 1960 Hague Act.   This means you cannot designate Indonesia via an international design application. All applications must be filed directly with Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP).   Local Agent Is Mandatory for Foreign Applicants   According to Article 1(6) of Ministerial Regulation No. 8 of 2016 on Procedures for Filing Industrial Designs: “Foreign applicants must file their applications through an Intellectual Property Consultant registered with the DGIP.” In other words, foreign entities may not file directly, either physically or online, regardless of whether the design was first filed in a Paris Convention country or not.   What Happens If You Ignore This?   Without a registered local consultant: Your application will be deemed incomplete and may be rejected. You risk missing the 6-month priority period under the Paris Convention due to procedural delays. Any errors in translation or classification may invalidate your application.   A local IP consultant ensures your application meets all administrative, language, and document legalization requirements.   Key Facts About Design Filing in Indonesia   Topic Details International Route Not available (not a Hague member) Local Representation Mandatory for foreign applicants Term of Protection 10 years from filing date (non-renewable) Examination Yes, for both formalities and substantive matters. Opposition Period 3 months from publication date Governing Law Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Design   Despite the absence of the Hague route and renewals, Indonesia’s design system is clear, relatively fast, and enforceable. It also operates in the context of Southeast Asia’s largest consumer market, with over 270 million people and growing enforcement capacity.   The DGIP recognizes priority rights under the Paris Convention (to which Indonesia is a party), so foreign applicants still benefit from global alignment, as long as they go through the right channel.   Need help filing your design in Indonesia? Book a free 15-minute call with a registered Industrial Design consultant:   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

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

Indonesia Fosters a Thriving IP Ecosystem: Domestic and International Filings Soar Over the Past Decade - AFFA IPR

Indonesia Fosters a Thriving IP Ecosystem: Domestic and International Filings Soar Over the Past Decade

Patent, Intellectual Property, Trademark, Copyright, Geographical Indication

Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has achieved a remarkable milestone over the past decade. According to a report delivered by the Director General of Intellectual Property, Razilu, a total of 1,738,573 Intellectual Property (IP) applications were filed between 2015 and 2024. “This is a monumental figure that reflects the extraordinary enthusiasm of the Indonesian public in protecting their intellectual creations,” Razilu stated during the “Ten-Year Performance Exposé and IP Appreciation” event, held in celebration of World Intellectual Property Day 2025 at Graha Pengayoman, Jakarta, on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. The data show that IP filings have grown at an average annual rate of 18.5%. According to Razilu, this growth is more than just numbers — it reflects increasing awareness of the importance of IP as a national economic and cultural asset. Razilu emphasized that this performance exposé is not merely an evaluation, but also a strategic platform to shape future IP policies. The goal is to ensure that every innovation and creative work by Indonesians is not only protected by law but also fully empowered. Of the total filings, approximately 86.76% originated from within the country. Domestic applicants contributed nearly 99.8% of Copyright filings, 85.2% of Trademark filings, and 68.76% of Industrial Design filings. However, domestic contributions to Patent filings remain relatively low, standing at just 32.05%, highlighting an area for improvement. “These figures demonstrate the strong dominance of local IP filings across all categories. It’s a testament to the thriving innovation and creativity among individuals, entrepreneurs, and inventors across Indonesia,” Razilu added. Over the same period, micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) were significant contributors to Trademark filings. The most registered classes included: Culinary products (Classes 30 and 29) Fashion (Class 25) Hospitality services (Class 43) Cosmetics and personal care (Class 3) In the Industrial Design category, top applications were concentrated in: Other printed matter (Class 19-08) Chairs (Class 06-01) Garments (Class 02-02) Travel bags, handbags, key holders (Class 03-01) Bags, containers, tubes, capsules (Class 09-05)  Meanwhile, the most recorded Copyright works were books, written articles, computer programs, video recordings, and posters. For Geographical Indications, the top five products over the past decade were coffee, woven textiles, rice, batik, and traditional salt. In the domestic Patent category, top filings involved food chemistry, pharmaceuticals, chemical engineering, special machinery, and basic chemistry. On the other hand, foreign Patent applications were dominated by sectors such as pharmaceuticals, digital communications, transportation, basic chemistry, and metallurgy. At AFFA Intellectual Property Rights, we welcome this growing momentum in Indonesia’s IP landscape. Our team of experienced IP consultants stands ready to support businesses, creators, and innovators—not only in Indonesia but also around the world—in securing and maximizing the value of their Intellectual Property. Let us help you navigate your IP journey with confidence.   Need help filing your IP in Indonesia? Book a free 15-minute call with a registered IP consultant and ensure your IP meets all local requirements:   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property

Top 3 Mistakes Foreigners Make When Filing Industrial Designs in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Top 3 Mistakes Foreigners Make When Filing Industrial Designs in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Industrial Design

Filing an Industrial Design in Indonesia may look simple, but even small missteps can lead to rejection—or worse, invalidate your rights after registration. For foreign applicants entering the Indonesian market, understanding what not to do is just as important as knowing the process.   Here are the top three mistakes we see most often—and how to avoid them:   Submitting Low-Quality or Blurry Images In Indonesia, clear and precise visual representation is the foundation of your Industrial Design protection. The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) requires at least seven views of your design—front, back, left, right, top, bottom, and perspective. If the images are pixelated, low-resolution, or fail to reflect the design’s features accurately, your application will likely be rejected. Tip: Use high-resolution, black-and-white line drawings with no background noise. Avoid shadows, gradients, or photographic textures. Your images must clearly define the form, not confuse it. Including Functional Features in the Design Indonesia protects the appearance, not the function, of a product. If your design focuses on aspects driven purely by function (e.g., grooves, openings, or mechanisms necessary for the item to work), it may fall outside the scope of Industrial Design protection. The DGIP strictly excludes any design elements that are dictated solely by function. Including such elements can lead to rejection or later invalidation if challenged. Tip: Before filing, ask yourself: “Could this shape be different and still work the same?” If the answer is no, that feature likely won’t qualify. Filing After Public Disclosure—Without Knowing the Grace Period Rules Many foreign applicants mistakenly believe that any public disclosure automatically voids their ability to protect a design in Indonesia. While Indonesia does have strict novelty requirements, the law also provides a 6-month grace period for certain types of disclosures. Under Indonesian law, a design is considered novel only if it has not been made available to the public anywhere in the world before the filing or priority date. However, there are two exceptions: If the design was displayed at a nationally or internationally recognized exhibition, or If the design was disclosed by the designer themselves for education, research, or development purposes. In these cases, you still have up to 6 months to file your application without losing novelty. Tip: If you’ve already shown your design to the public, act fast. Check whether your situation qualifies for the grace period and file within six months—or risk permanent loss of rights.   Clean Up Your Designs Before You File   With rising interest in Indonesian design protection from global brands, getting it right the first time matters more than ever. A rejected or invalidated design not only costs time and money—it can expose your product to copycats in Southeast Asia’s biggest market.   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