Why patent infringement turns on the technical analysis, and how the civil and criminal routes compare
For a rights holder who find a suspected infringement in the market, the first question is rarely which forum to choose. It is whether the product actually falls within the patent claims. That assessment, more than the route chosen, is where patent enforcement in Indonesia is won or lost.
How Patent Infringement Is Assessed
Infringement is a technical question, decided on the wording of the granted claims. As patent rights are territorial, the assessment under Indonesian Patent Law must be based on a patent granted in Indonesia and whether the accused product or process falls within the scope of its claims without authorization.
Before any letter is sent or any complaint is filed, the analysis must map the suspected product against each element of the claims it is said to infringe. This is patent claim construction, and it carries more weight than any other step in an enforcement matter.
Indonesian courts and police investigators rely heavily on expert and technical evidence to answer that question. The view of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), the office that examined and granted the patent, is particularly influential. In criminal matters, investigators will usually look to the DGIP’s assessment of infringement before they act. In civil proceedings, the court calls technical experts to give evidence on whether the claims read onto the product. A clear, well-documented claim analysis is therefore not a formality. It sets the ceiling on what every later step can achieve.
The Two Enforcement Routes in Indonesia
A patent holder pursuing litigation in Indonesia has two routes.
The civil route runs through the Commercial Court (Pengadilan Niaga). It hears intellectual property cases in five cities: Jakarta, Surabaya, Medan, Semarang, and Makassar, each of which has jurisdiction over multiple provinces.The court can award damages, usually calculated on the infringer’s undue profits. It can also grant a preliminary injunction in principle, to stop the infringing acts or preserve evidence. That injunction requires strong prima facie evidence, and it remains rare in practice. No preliminary injunction in a patent matter is known to have been granted to date, so a rights holder should not build a strategy around obtaining one.
The criminal route begins with a complaint. Patent infringement is a complaint-based offence (delik aduan), which means the police cannot act on their own initiative. The rights holder must first file a complaint with the police or the civil servant investigators (PPNS) at the Ministry of Law. If sufficient evidence is found, the case proceeds to the District Court (Pengadilan Negeri). Intentional infringement carries maximum penalties of imprisonment of up to four years and a fine of up to IDR 200 million.
| Feature | Civil route | Criminal route |
| Forum | Commercial Court (Pengadilan Niaga) | Police / PPNS investigation, then the District Court (Pengadilan Negeri) |
| Started by | Claim filed by the rights holder | Complaint filed by the rights holder (delik aduan) |
| Main remedy | Damages on an undue-profits basis; injunction in principle | Imprisonment up to 4 years and a fine up to IDR 200 million |
| Practical note | Preliminary injunctions remain untested for patents | Investigators generally require the DGIP’s view before acting |
Why a Warning Letter Usually Comes First
Indonesian law does not require a rights holder to send a warning letter before commencing enforcement proceedings. Even so, a warning letter is usually the right opening move. Liability for damages is clearest where the infringement is shown to be deliberate. A documented warning puts the other side on notice, which helps establish that knowledge. A letter can also resolve the matter without recourse to formal proceedings.
The timing, however, is a judgement call. A warning letter signals intent, and a determined infringer may use the warning to move stock or restructure before any action lands. Where that risk is real, an investigation or an evidence-gathering step may need to come first. This is the point at which the choice between a criminal complaint and an open civil demand actually matters.
What This Means for Patent Holders
The route is a second-order decision. The first-order work is evidence.
SKC Law’s team handles the full range of patent enforcement options in Indonesia. In every matter the same first step applies: confirm that the patent portfolio is complete and in force, then review the suspected infringer’s own IP position before deciding how to proceed. A patent that has lapsed for an unpaid annuity, or a claim set that does not quite cover the product, will not improve once a dispute is under way.
For rights holders, three points follow. Keep annuities paid and the portfolio in force through a regular IP audit, so that enforcement is available when it is needed. Invest in the technical claim analysis early, because it governs both routes equally. And treat the warning letter as a strategic step, since its timing can help or harm the case that follows.
Moving Forward
Indonesia’s patent system has matured, and reforms such as the new Patents Regulation 6/2026 signal continued investment in it. Enforcement is available and can be effective, but it rewards preparation. Patent litigation in Indonesia favours the owner who has documented the claims, confirmed the portfolio, and chosen the route deliberately.
For advice on infringement assessments, warning letters, or enforcement strategy in Indonesia, contact our team at enquiries@skclaw.id.
Submit a specific enquiry via the Contact Page.
Follow us on LinkedIn for further updates on Indonesian IP.
This content is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on specific matters, contact enquiries@skclaw.id.
