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

Patent, Intellectual Property

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…

Guide to Apply for Accelerated Patent Publication in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Guide to Apply for Accelerated Patent Publication in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

Under normal circumstances, the publication of a Patent application is carried out no later than 18 months after the application’s filing date. However, Applicants may request accelerated publication, allowing the application to be announced earlier, namely, 6 months from the filing date. How can this be done?   Requirements for Accelerated Publication   To utilize the accelerated publication procedure, the Applicant must complete the following steps. Please note, this procedure does not apply to Utility Model applications:   Submit a Request Letter for Accelerated Publication to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). Provide the reasons why the publication needs to be accelerated. Pay the official fee for acceleration in accordance with the applicable tariff.   Official Fee (Latest Tariff)   According to the latest Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP) tariff from DGIP, the fee for filing an accelerated publication request is IDR 500,000 per application.   This fee does not include consultant service fees for handling the Patent application.   Procedure   File the Patent application as usual and ensure that a filing date has been obtained. Prepare a Request Letter for Accelerated Publication containing the application details, reasons for acceleration, and the Applicant’s/Attorney’s signature. Pay the acceleration fee of IDR 500,000. Upload the request documents and proof of payment through the DGIP system (Post-Application Patent Services). DGIP will process and publish the application six months after the filing date.   For more information regarding applying for Accelerated Patent Publication in Indonesia, please contact us through the following channels:   ? 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

PCT National Phase in Indonesia: Is the 31-Month Deadline a Hard Deadline? - AFFA IPR

PCT National Phase in Indonesia: Is the 31-Month Deadline a Hard Deadline?

Patent, Intellectual Property

If you are eyeing Indonesia for your PCT National Phase entry, you have likely heard about the 31-month rule, which is calculated from the earliest priority date.   But here is  the key question: “Miss the deadline — and you’re out?”   The answer is: Not necessarily.   Unlike some jurisdictions, Indonesia offers a second chance. The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) accepts late entry, up to 12 months after the 31-month deadline, provided: You pay an additional official fee, and Submit a written explanation justifying the delay.   This flexibility helps businesses avoid losing rights over paperwork or timing errors, but the longer you wait, the greater the risk.   Our advice? Don’t cut it close. However, if you really have to, be aware of your options and the extra requirements.   Need to file a late PCT national phase in Indonesia — or avoid the mistake in the first place? Please do not hesitate to contact a registered Patent Attorney in Indonesia.   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812

How to Pay Patent Annuity Fees in Indonesia if the Patent Owner is a Foreign Individual or Entity? - AFFA IPR

How to Pay Patent Annuity Fees in Indonesia if the Patent Owner is a Foreign Individual or Entity?

Patent, Intellectual Property

For foreign Patent owners—whether individuals or entities—navigating Patent Annuity payments in Indonesia requires careful attention to local legal requirements. Under the latest Indonesian Patent Law (Law No. 65 of 2024), foreign applicants or Patent Holders are not permitted to interact directly with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) for official filings, including Annuity Payments. Instead, they are legally required to appoint a registered Intellectual Property Consultant as their proxy.   Legal Basis: Article 28 of Law No. 65 of 2024   “An Application filed by an Applicant who does not reside or does not have permanent domicile in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia must be filed by his/her Proxy. The Applicant, as referred to in Paragraph (1), is required to state and select the address of the Attorney as the legal domicile in Indonesia.”   This provision applies not only to initial Patent filings but also to any subsequent procedures related to the Patent—including annuity payments.   Why Is a Local Proxy Mandatory?   The purpose of requiring a legal representative within Indonesia is to avoid complications in service due to geographic distance and travel time. As stated in the explanation of the Law:   “The appointment of power of attorney and legal domicile in Indonesia aims to not complicate services due to distance and travel time.”   In practice, this means that even if a foreign Patent Holder wishes to make timely Annuity Payments, such payments will not be accepted by the DGIP unless submitted through a registered local proxy.   What Happens If a Foreign Patent Owner Pays Without a Local Proxy?   Without a legally appointed Indonesian Intellectual Property Consultant, the payment is considered invalid. This could result in: Rejection of the Annuity Payment by the DGIP; Legal status of the Patent becoming vulnerable, especially if deadlines are missed as a result; Loss of Patent Rights if annuity obligations are not fulfilled properly through the designated channels.   How to Appoint a Local Proxy?   To comply with Indonesian law, foreign individuals or entities must: Sign a Power of Attorney (PoA) authorizing a registered Indonesian IP Consultant; Provide the necessary details for the Consultant to act as legal proxy and domicile; Work with the Consultant to monitor and schedule annuity payments according to Indonesian regulations.   If you’re a foreign Patent Owner, it is not just a matter of convenience but a legal obligation to appoint a registered Indonesian IP Consultant to handle your Patent Annuity fees. Doing so ensures compliance, avoids unnecessary risks, and maintains the enforceability of your patent in Indonesia. Should you need more information about your annuity payments in Indonesia, feel free to contact us at [email protected].

Safeguarding Patent Rights Amid Implementation Challenges in Indonesia – Understanding Article 90 of the Patent Law - AFFA IPR

Safeguarding Patent Rights Amid Implementation Challenges in Indonesia – Understanding Article 90 of the Patent Law

Patent, Intellectual Property

In the landscape of Intellectual Property protection, Indonesia’s Patent Law sets a clear framework to ensure that Patents are registered and implemented for the nation’s benefit. Article 20 and its companion Article 20A of the Patent Law impose a fundamental obligation on Patent Holders: to commercially implement their Patents within Indonesian territory and report such implementation annually to the Minister.   However, recognizing the complex realities of bringing certain patented technologies to market, Article 90 introduces a crucial safeguard — a mechanism that allows flexibility in the face of genuine implementation delays. This provision is pivotal in balancing national interests with the practical constraints that Patent Holders may face.   Key Provisions of Article 90   Article 90 provides that: Discretion to Delay or Deny Compulsory Licenses: The Minister has the authority to delay or reject a request for a compulsory license if, based on recommendations from a team of experts and the Patent Holder’s explanation, it is established that the Patent in question reasonably requires more than 36 months to be commercially implemented in Indonesia. Requirement of Supporting Evidence: The Patent Holder must submit a formal statement supported by evidence demonstrating that the 36-month period is insufficient for commercial implementation. This evidence may include technical, financial, regulatory, or market-related obstacles that have prevented timely execution.   Relationship with Article 20 and 20A   Article 20 of the Patent Law mandates that every Patent must be implemented in Indonesia, while Article 20A requires Patent Holders to submit an annual declaration to the Minister detailing such implementation. These articles are designed to prevent the warehousing of Patents and ensure that patented inventions contribute to domestic innovation, manufacturing, and economic development.   Yet, strict enforcement of these provisions without flexibility could unjustly penalize inventors and companies that face legitimate delays. This is where Article 90 becomes essential: it prevents automatic penalties, such as the granting of compulsory licenses or potential cancellation of the Patent, by recognizing that not all Patents can be commercially viable within the same timeframe.   Practical Implications   Article 90 ensures that: ⁠Inventors are protected from losing control of their Patents due to delays beyond their control. ⁠Authorities are guided by expert input and factual evidence rather than rigid timelines. ⁠A balance is maintained between incentivizing local use of patents and acknowledging the real-world complexities of innovation, particularly in high-tech or heavily regulated industries.   Article 90 of the Indonesian Patent Law serves as a vital antidote to the potential rigidity of Articles 20 and 20A. It embodies a pragmatic approach to Patent enforcement by introducing flexibility and fairness into the system. For Patent Holders, especially those managing complex innovations, this article provides a necessary legal avenue to protect their rights while working towards the eventual implementation of their patents in Indonesia. Should you need more information about Indonesian Patent Law and maintaining your Patent in Indonesia, you can contact us through email [email protected].

Mandatory Patent Implementation Annual Reporting in Indonesia Is in Force - AFFA IPR

Mandatory Patent Implementation Annual Reporting in Indonesia Is in Force

Patent, Intellectual Property1 Comment

In accordance to Article 20A of Law No. 65 Year 2024, a Patent Holder is obliged to file an annual Patent implementation report to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) under the Ministry of Law before the annuity payment deadline. Be mindful that failure to implement a registered Patent in Indonesia may lead to the Patent Registration being subject to compulsory licensing and/or potential  Patent Invalidation, which can be filed before the Court of Commerce.   Under the Indonesian practice, what constitutes as a Patent implementation/use are as follows: Product is manufactured/process is used and commercialized; Product is manufactured/process is used but not yet commercialized; Importation of patented product/process; or Licensing of patented product/process.   While the implementing regulation for this specific matter has yet to be issued, the DGIP officers have urged the Patent holders to file the annual implementation report no later than the end of each year. Should you need more information about the annual Patent implementation report in Indonesia, feel free to contact us at [email protected].

Discover 6 Intellectual Property Potentials in Padel - AFFA IPR

Discover 6 Intellectual Property Potentials in Padel

Patent, Intellectual Property, Trademark, Copyright, Industrial Design

Padel is experiencing rapid growth in Indonesia. Over the past few years, it has captured the attention of various groups — from sports communities and entrepreneurs to celebrities. Its popularity is reflected in its inclusion in PON XXI 2024 (National Sports Week) held in Aceh – North Sumatra, as well as in several tournaments held in Indonesia, including the Asia Pacific Padel Cup 2024 and Padel Pro Open 2025.   Padel was first created in 1969 in Acapulco, Mexico, by Enrique Corcuera. He modified a squash court at his home by adding walls and elements from tennis, creating a new game called “Paddle Corcuera.” This new game quickly attracted the attention of his friends, including Alfonso de Hohenlohe, who later introduced padel to Marbella, Spain in 1974 and built two courts there. From Spain, padel spread to Argentina (1975) and continued to grow in popularity across Europe and Latin America. In 1991, the Federation International de Padel (FIP) was established in Madrid, Spain, to regulate and promote the sport globally.   As the padel ecosystem continues to grow in Indonesia, various elements — such as tournament names, logos, racket designs, court technology, training strategies, and merchandise — are becoming strong identity markers with commercial value. All of these should and can be protected through various forms of Intellectual Property (IP) rights, so that all parties involved can benefit while supporting a more sustainable padel ecosystem.   Here are several relevant and potential IP categories in the world of padel:   Trademark Names of padel clubs, logos, slogans, tournaments, courts, training academies, apparel, padel balls, rackets, or other equipment should be protected to avoid the use of identical or confusingly similar names. These should be registered as Trademarks, which offer protection for 10 years and can be renewed indefinitely. Industrial Design The visual designs of rackets, special padel shoes, and uniquely styled tournament uniforms can be protected as Industrial Designs, with a protection period of up to 10 years. Patent This category includes technological innovations in racket materials or structure, automated digital scoring systems, training sensors, and unique portable padel court construction features. Such innovations can evolve continuously and offer local manufacturers or innovators a competitive edge. Copyright Promotional content such as tournament highlight videos, music, event posters, digital graphics, and training modules or documented game strategies is automatically protected under Copyright. However, formal recordation is recommended to strengthen legal proof of ownership. Trade Secret This category includes exclusive training techniques used by padel coaches, business strategies or community management models, and even recipes or formulas for sports nutrition products used by a club. Trade Secrets do not require registration but must be kept confidential to remain protected. Licensing & Franchising Business models such as court rentals, expansion of padel club branches, licensing tournament names for use in other cities, or even launching padel-themed café franchises can be governed through licensing or franchise agreements, and can be officially recorded to secure legal protection and expand commercial benefits.   Ultimately, padel is a fun sport and a gateway to economic opportunities through Intellectual Property assets. Business actors and padel communities must understand that the innovation, creativity, and identity they build today can become sustainable business value — if properly managed and protected. Should you need further information about registering and protecting Intellectual Property in the padel sport, feel free to contact us at [email protected].

4 Common IP Mistakes That Cost Companies Millions — And How to Avoid Them - AFFA IPR

4 Common IP Mistakes That Cost Companies Millions — And How to Avoid Them

Intellectual Property

Protecting intellectual property (IP) is crucial for businesses to maintain their competitive edge and avoid significant financial losses. Missteps in IP management can lead to costly legal battles, loss of market exclusivity, and reputational damage. At AFFA Intellectual Property Rights, we have observed how certain oversights can jeopardize a company’s assets. This article highlights common IP mistakes that have cost companies millions and offers guidance on how to avoid them.   Delaying Trademark Registration, Losing Momentum Real Case: A major phone company lost its momentum to secure its Mark easily in Indonesia because its former distributor managed to file it first in Indonesia. The company had to challenge the ownership of the Mark before the Court of Commerce. How to Avoid It: File early — before launching products or entering new markets. Have an agreement with potential distributors on IP ownership Neglecting International Trademark Protection: Locked Out of Your Brand Real Case: A fast-growing electric vehicle company faced a legal dispute in East Asia when a local businessman had already registered the company’s brand name. The company had to settle the matter through costly negotiations to enter the market under its own name. How to Avoid It: Create a global Trademark filing strategy — especially for key growth markets. Use the Madrid Protocol or local filings, depending on your market. Rely on local IP experts who understand the nuances of national systems. Failing to Record a Trademark License: Legal and Commercial Setbacks Real Case: Some overseas companies faced delays in distributing certified products because the Trademark they were using, although legally licensed, was not officially recorded with the authorities. Without this, certification bodies could not process mandatory approvals and licenses to be able to operate in Indonesia. How to Avoid It: Record all Trademark licenses at the national IP office. Work with consultants who understand licensing formalities and draft enforceable agreements. Do not assume a signed appointment contract is enough — a specific license agreement will be required. Not Using a Patent Locally: Risk of Revocation Real Case: In several jurisdictions, companies have had their Patents challenged or revoked because the inventions were not “worked” or implemented within the country. This has opened the door to compulsory licensing by third parties. How to Avoid It: Prepare a local implementation or commercialization strategy. Consider partnerships with local entities to meet legal requirements. Monitor “working” obligations in each country where you hold Patents.   Conclusion: Proactive IP Management is Essential Many companies only realize the importance of IP when it is too late, especially when it comes to Indonesia as a growing market. Indonesia is a challenging country when it comes to IP, but with proper planning, it does not have to be so challenging!   AFFA Intellectual Property Rights has helped businesses across the globe secure and protect their Trademarks, Patents, Industrial Designs, and licenses — both in Indonesia and internationally. From strategic filings to enforcement and compliance, we offer practical solutions that prevent losses before they happen. Should you need assistance securing or defending your IP in Indonesia or globally, contact AFFA Intellectual Property Rights today at [email protected].

Extension of Time to Complete Patent Application Formality Documents - AFFA IPR

Extension of Time to Complete Patent Application Formality Documents

Patent, Intellectual Property

Indonesia’s Patent regulation has undergone significant changes following the enactment of Law No. 65 Year 2024, which amends Law No. 13 Year 2016 on Patents. One of the key amendments is the extension of time to complete the formalities in a Patent application.   Previous Regulation (Law No. 13 Year 2016) Under the previous version of Article 35: Applicants who received a notification to complete formal requirements had 3 months from the date of notification to comply. If needed, applicants could request two extensions: First extension: Up to 2 months. Second extension: Up to 1 additional month, subject to a fee.   However, the second extension (one month with a fee) was rarely utilized in practice. Many applicants who requested extensions still failed to complete the requirements, resulting in their applications being considered withdrawn.   Current Regulation (Law No. 65 Year 2024) The amended Article 35 introduces more stringent provisions: Applicants still have 3 months to complete formal requirements after receiving notification. Only one extension of up to 2 months is now permitted. Additional extension beyond the two months is only possible under emergency circumstances and requires strong supporting evidence.   Key Takeaways: The second extension option (1 month with a fee) has been repealed. The new law limits the extension to a one-time request, making compliance more challenging but streamlining the overall process.   Practical Steps for Applicants To meet the formality requirements within the given timeframe, applicants are advised to prepare the following key documents promptly: Power of Attorney (PoA) Statement of Assignment or Deed of Assignment   Failing to submit these documents within the prescribed period, including the extension, will result in the Patent application being considered withdrawn.   Comparison Table   Aspect Before Amendment (Law No. 13/2016) After Amendment (Law No. 65/2024) Initial Period to Complete Requirements 3 months from the date of the Minister’s notification 3 months from the date of the Minister’s notification First Extension Up to 2 months Up to 2 months Second Extension Additional 1 month, subject to fee Abolished Additional Extension in Emergency Cases Not explicitly regulated Allowed only in emergencies, up to 6 months, with strong supporting evidence Total Possible Duration 3 months + 2 months + 1 month (total 6 months), with the possibility of paying the fee for the final month 3 months + 2 months (total 5 months), emergency extension possible up to 6 months, but requires justification Ease for Applicants More lenient with more extension options Stricter, only one regular extension allowed Impact on Examination Timeframe Potentially longer due to multiple extensions Shorter, as fewer extensions are permitted   The recent amendment emphasizes the importance of timely compliance. Applicants are now only allowed one extension of two months, with no further routine extensions available. While this makes the process more demanding, it significantly shortens the formality examination period, enhancing efficiency in Indonesia’s Patent system. Applicants must prepare their formal documents meticulously and avoid delays to ensure the smooth processing of their applications.   You might also want to read: Steps to Take When a Patent Application is Deemed Withdrawn in Indonesia Should you need more information regarding the extension of time to complete Patent application formality documents in Indonesia, feel free to contact us via email at [email protected].