Protection of Improvement Invention Under Indonesia’s Patent Law

This article aims to examine the protection of improvement invention under Indonesia’s Patent Law 2016 compared to the TRIPs Agreement. It also aims to find out the weaknesses of its protection in the Law and finally to provide a recommendation to rectify the weaknesses. The research uses a normative approach, which is analyzing certain provisions in Indonesian patent laws and international conventions, especially the TRIPs Agreement, and incorporating information from books, journals and Internet sources as supporting arguments. The method of analysis is a comparative one. The article finds some weaknesses of the protection of improvement invention in Indonesia’s Patent Law 2016, such as the Law does not define “improvement” and it does not recognize a new use of an existing product as a patentable invention. Unlike the TRIPs Agreement, the Law seems to confine the protection of improvement invention only to a simple patent contradicting with its general recognition that improvement invention can be protected by a basic patent. In terms of compulsory licensing, unlike the TRIPs Agreement, the Law does not govern the possibility of waiving the prior authorization effort requirement to remedy an anti-competitive practice. Additionally, the Law imposes an onerous local working requirement that is not in line with Article 27(1) of the TRIPs Agreement. The article recommends that Indonesia define the meaning of improvement. The country should recognize a new use of an existing invention in a medical context as a patentable invention. Concerning compulsory licensing, Indonesia should govern the waiver of the prior authorization effort requirement to remedy an anti-competitive practice. Besides, regarding the local working requirement, Indonesia should ease the requirement by amending the Patent Law 2016 to follow its previous patent laws’ flexible local working requirement, which does not arguably contradict the TRIPs Agreement.