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

Intellectual Property, Patent

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

Intellectual Property, Patent

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

Patent, Intellectual Property

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…

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

Intellectual Property, Trademark, Patent, 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?

Intellectual Property, Patent

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

Intellectual Property, Patent1 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].