DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v8i2.312-349

Comparing Indonesian Patent Law Enforcement with Malaysia, Singapore, and Germany System

*Abd Thalib orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Riau, Indonesia
Abu Bakar Munir scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia
Nur Aisyah Thalib orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Riau, Indonesia

Citation Format:
Abstract
Patent enforcement is a critical element in ensuring legal certainty, enhancing innovation, and strengthening a technology-based investment climate. However, patent enforcement practices in Indonesia continue to face significant structural and institutional challenges. This article identifies three principal issues: the limited institutional capacity of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), prolonged patent dispute resolution processes, and the lack of adequate technical expertise within judicial proceedings. This study aims to analyze the challenges of patent law enforcement in Indonesia through a comparative legal approach with Malaysia, Singapore, and Germany. The research employs a normative legal methodology with a comparative approach, relying on doctrinal analysis of statutory regulations, judicial decisions, and relevant academic literature. The findings reveal that Malaysia has enhanced patent quality through a post-grant opposition mechanism that functions as an administrative filter against weak patents. Singapore demonstrates best practices by integrating technical assistants who actively support judges in understanding the technological complexities of patent disputes. Germany, meanwhile, represents an ideal model of patent enforcement through its bifurcated litigation system and the presence of a highly specialized Federal Patent Court. This article concludes that improving the effectiveness of patent law enforcement in Indonesia requires more profound and targeted institutional reforms. Such reforms include strengthening the role of the DGIP, adopting a post-grant administrative opposition mechanism, and systematically integrating technical expertise into the judicial system. Policy recommendations are directed toward establishing a specialized patent judiciary division as a strategic step to enhance legal certainty and national innovation competitiveness
Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Germany; Indonesia; Malaysia; Patent Law Enforcement; Singapore

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : EN
  1. Al Asy’arie, M. A. H., Rahmanda, B., & Prasetyo, K. A. (2024). Transfer Of Intellectual Property Right As A Company Asset In Bankruptcy In Indonesia. Diponegoro Law Review,9(1),53-69. https://doi.org/10.147 10/dilrev.9.1.2024.53-69
  2. Ali, A., Tufail, A., De Silva, L. C., & Abas, P. E. (2024). Innovating Patent Retrieval: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques, Trends, and Challenges in Prior Art Searches. Applied System Innovation, 7(5), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi7050091
  3. Arman, A. H., & Kahkeshan, S. (2024). Comparative Study of IP Law Enforcement in Developing vs. Developed Countries: Identifying Primary Challenges and their Implications. Journal of Legal Studies & Research, 10(5), 76-106. https://journal.thelawbrigade.com/jlsr/article/view/1659
  4. Ariyanti, A. (2010). Reverse Engineering Program Komputer Dalam Perspektif Hukum Hak Cipta Dan Paten Di Indonesia Malaysia. Law Reform, 5(2), 136-156. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v5i2.12498
  5. Atmaja, Y.S., Santoso, B., & Irawati, I. (2021). Pelindungan Hukum Terhadap Paten Produk Farmasi Atas Pelaksanaan Paten Oleh Pemerintah (Government Use). Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 50(2), 196-208. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.50.2.2021.196-208
  6. Azizan, A., Sophia, S., Zahra, S., & Perai, N. (2024). Optimizing Civil Construction Litigation In Indonesia: A Comprehensive Framework For Efficiency, Expertise, And Equity In Dispute Resolution. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 13(1), 189–226. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.13.1.2024.189-226
  7. Brandl, K., Darendeli, I., & Mudambi, R. (2019). Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies,50(5),826–846. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0172-6
  8. Budi, V.H.S. (2019). Policy Study In Indonesia’s Patent Legal System. Law Reform, 15(2), 206-224. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v15i2.26179
  9. Butticè, V., Caviggioli, F., Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., Stryszowski, P., & Thumm, N. (2020). Counterfeiting in digital technologies: An empirical analysis of the economic performance and innovative activities of affected companies. Research Policy, 49(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103959
  10. Cao, S., Lei, Z., & Oh, J. (2018). How do firms utilize the deferred patent examination system? Evidence from Korea. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(2), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2018-0066
  11. Chaliva, I & Tarina, D.D.Y (2023). Penerapan Percepatan Layanan Paten Sederhana Pada Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja. USM Law Review, 6(3), 1109-1123. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v6i3.7851
  12. Crawford, S.-J., O’Brien, H. M., & Stones, J. A. (2021). Case Law: A Review of Selected Pharmaceutical Patents in the UK Courts During 2020. British Journal of Pharmacy, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5920/bjpharm.1000
  13. Cremers, K., Ernicke, M., Gaessler, F., Harhoff, D., Helmers, C., McDonagh, L., Schliessler, P., & van Zeebroeck, N. (2017). Patent litigation in Europe. European Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-016-9529-0
  14. Cremers, K., Gaessler, F., Harhoff, D., & Helmers, C. (2014). Invalid But Infringed? An Analysis of Germany’s Bifurcated Patent Litigation System (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2504507). Social Science Research Network. https://www.science direct.com/science/article/pii/S016726811630 1640
  15. Cremers, K., Gaessler, F., Harhoff, D., Helmers, C., & Lefouili, Y. (2016). Invalid but infringed? An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 131, Part A, 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jebo.2016.08.005
  16. De, S. (2012). The Use of Dispute Resolution to Resolve Intellectual Property Conflicts—A Survey of Emerging Trends and Practices (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2062993). HNLU Paper Series, Forthcoming. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2062993
  17. Dejuan-Bitria, D., & Mora-Sanguinetti, J. S. (2021). Which legal procedure affects business investment most, and which companies are most sensitive? Evidence from microdata. Economic Modelling, 94, 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.econmod.2020.09.023
  18. Dewi, N. S., & Suteki, S. (2017). Obstruksi Pelaksanaan Lisensi Wajib Paten Dalam Rangka Alih Teknologi Pada Perusahaan Farmasi Di Indonesia. Law Reform, 13(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v13i1.15947
  19. Disemadi, H.S., Hasmin, N.A., Tan, D., Afdal, W., & Weley, N.C. (2026). Ethical Boundaries Of Genetic Engineering Patents In Indonesia And Malaysia. Masalah-Masalah Hukum,55(1),148-170. https://doi.org/10. 14710/mmh.55.1.2026.148-170
  20. Elfakharani, A. M. A., Rahman, R. A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2019). Arbitration or Litigation: International High-Tech Business Disputes Resolutions. American Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(1), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.20448/801.41.68.74
  21. Encaoua, D., & Madies, T. (2014). Dysfunctions of the patent system and their effects on competition. PSE-Ecole d’économie de Paris (Postprint), PSE-Ecole d’économie de Paris (Postprint), Article halshs-00848247. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00848247/document
  22. Gaessler, F., Harhoff, D., Sorg, S., & von Graevenitz, G. (2025). Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition. Management Science, 71(2), 1315–1334. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.02294
  23. Garcez, S. S., & Moreira, J. de J. da S. (2017). O backlog de patentes no Brasil: O direito à razoável duração do procedimento administrativo. Revista Direito GV, 13(1), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201708
  24. Gertner, N., & Sanders, J. (2018). Alternatives to Traditional Adversary Methods of Presenting Scientific Expertise in the Legal System. Daedalus, 147(4), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00525
  25. Girindra, I. A.V., Kusumadara, A., & Widyanti, Y. E. (2024). The Legal Protection for Patent Holders in Divided Infringement in Indonesia. Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana,13(4),816-832. https://doi.org/10.24843/JMHU.2024.v13.i04.p05
  26. Graham, S. J. H., Hall, B. H., Harhoff, D., & Mowery, D. C. (2002). Post-Issue Patent “Quality Control”: A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-examinations and European Patent Oppositions (No. W8807; p. w8807). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. https://www.nber.org/ system/files/working_papers/w8807/w8807.pdf
  27. Guan, T. (2023). Investors’ Perspective on Intellectual Property Financing. Seton Hall Law Review, 54(2). https://doi.org/10.60095/ELXR4695
  28. Hayuningrum, Y. W., & Roisah, K. (2015). Perlindungan Hak Ekonomi Terhadap Penggunaan Merek Dalam Perjanjian Waralaba. Law Reform, 11(2), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v11i2.15773
  29. Hegde, D., Herkenhoff, K., & Zhu, C. (2023). Patent Publication and Innovation. Journal of Political Economy, 131(7). https://doi.org/10.1086/723636
  30. Helmers, C., & Love, B. J. (2024). Patent law reform and innovation: An empirical assessment of the last 20 years. International Review of Law and Economics,79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106210
  31. Higham, K., de Rassenfosse, G., & Jaffe, A. B. (2021). Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement. Research Policy, 50(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104215
  32. Hoffmann, J., Glückler, J., Khuchua, T., Lachapelle, F., Lazega, E., & Zipf, M. (2024). Legalist and Realist Decision-Making in Patent Law: Validity Cases in Germany. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/p354r_v1
  33. Hu, W., Yoshioka-Kobayashi, T., & Watanabe, T. (2020). Determinants of patent infringement awards in the US, Japan, and China: A comparative analysis. World Patent Information, 60. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.wpi.2019.101947
  34. Hudson, J., & Minea, A. (2013). Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Development: A Unified Empirical Investigation. World Development, 46, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.023
  35. Janicke, P. M. (2005). On the Causes of Unpredictability of Federal Circuit Decisions in Patent Cases. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property,3(2). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=njti
  36. Kaushik, M., Rajharia, P., Vyas, V., & Soni, S. (2023). Navigating Intellectual Property Rights: Fostering Innovation, Access, and Education in the Indian Context. E3S Web of Conferences, 399. https://doi.org/10. 1051/e3sconf/202339907004
  37. Kesan, J. P., & Ball, G. G. (2006). How Are Patent Cases Resolved? An Empirical Examination of the Adjudication and Settlement of Patent Disputes. Washington University Law Review, 84(2), 237–312. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/6857/galley/23690/view/
  38. Kim, J., Shi, T. T., & Verdi, R. S. (2025). The Innovation Consequences of Judicial Efficiency (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4520053). Journal of Accounting & Economics (JAE), Forthcoming. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4520053
  39. Kim, Y. K., Lee, K., Park, W. G., & Choo, K. (2012). Appropriate intellectual property protection and economic growth in countries at different levels of development. Research Policy, 41(2), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.003
  40. Kurniawan, I. G. A., Merthada, N.M.D.S, Darma, I.M.W., Wulandari, N.G.A.A.M.T., Ezzerouali, S.A., & Tee-anastacio, P.A. (2025). Deconstructing Trademark Authenticity: A Comparative Study Of Legal Interpretations In Indonesia, Oman, And The Philippines. Diponegoro Law Review. 10(2),310-322. https://doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.10.2.2025.310-322
  41. Kumar, R., Yadav, S. K., & Verma, S. (2018). Intellectual property rights protection and foreign direct investment: A study of BRICS countries. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 14(6), 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2018.097697
  42. Kwon, S. (2021). The prevalence of weak patents in the United States: A new method to identify weak patents and the implications for patent policy. Technology in Society, 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101469
  43. Laksmi, D. A. V. (2024). Penerapan pendekatan hukum dalam inovasi pembelajaran terhadap implementasi kurikulum hukum di perguruan tinggi. Learning : Jurnal Inovasi Penelitian Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 4(1),53–61. https://doi.org/10.51878/learning.v4i1.2749
  44. Lee, P. (2010). Patent Law and the Two Cultures (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 1500050). Yale Law Journal, 120. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1500050
  45. Lemley, K. M. (2015). I’ll Make Him an Offer He Can’t Refuse: A Proposed Model for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Intellectual Property Disputes. Akron Law Review,37(2). https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol37/iss2/7
  46. Lemley, M. A., Li, S., & Urban, J. M. (2014). Does Familiarity Breed Contempt Among Judges Deciding Patent Cases? (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2347712). Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2347712, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2347712, 66 Stanford Law Review 1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2347712
  47. Liegsalz, J., & Wagner, S. (2013). Patent examination at the State Intellectual Property Office in China. Research Policy, 42(2),552–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.003
  48. Liu, M. X. (2018). Balancing the Competing Functions of Patent Post-Grant Proceedings. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 25(2), 157. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol25/iss2/2/
  49. Liu, W.-H. (2016). Intellectual Property Rights, FDI, R&D and Economic Growth: A Cross-country Empirical Analysis. The World Economy,39(7),983–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12304
  50. Masur, J. S., & Ouellette, L. L. (2023). Response to Request for Comments on USPTO Initiatives to Ensure the Robustness and Reliability of Patent Rights (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4339956). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4339956
  51. Miller, B., & Curry, B. (2009). Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Law & Society Review,43(4),839–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00390.x
  52. Ningrum, Y. P. W., & Faslah, R. (2025). Sengketa Hak Paten Dalam Persaingan Bisnis (Studi Kasus Apple vs. Samsung). Jurnal Ekonomi Manajemen Dan Bisnis (JEMB), 4(1),267–271. https://doi.org/10.47233/jemb.v4i1.2916
  53. Oytana, Y., & Chappe, N. (2018). Expert opinion in a tort litigation game. European Journal of Law and Economics, 46(1), 67–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-018-9584-9
  54. Marco, A. C., Sarnoff, J. D., & deGrazia, C. A. W. (2019). Patent claims and patent scope. Research Policy, 17 (103790). 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.01
  55. Purwaningsih, E. (2020). Patent Law and Its Enforcement in Indonesia, Japan and the USA. Jurnal Media Hukum, 27(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.20200138
  56. Purwaningsih, E., & Ariyanti, E. R. N. (2021). Kebijakan Paten Melalui Penguatan Perlindungan Invensi Teknologi dan Peningkatan Kemampuan Inovasi. Jurnal Surya Kencana Satu : Dinamika Masalah Hukum Dan Keadilan, 12(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.32493/jdmhkdmhk.v12i2.15865
  57. Prabandari, A. P., Hananto, P. W. H., Lestari, S. N., & Roisah, K. (2020). The legal protection of intellectual property rights toward the maritime scientific researches in Indonesian seas. AACL Bioflux, 13(3), 1437-1444. https://bioflux.com.ro/home/volume-13-3-2020/
  58. Quoc, N. (2021). Impacts of IPRs Basic Provisions in CPTPP on Technology Transfer and Innovation—Suggestion in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 18(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol18.4.819
  59. Rao, A., Ali, M., & Smith, J. M. (2024). Foreign direct investment and domestic innovation: Roles of absorptive capacity, quality of regulations and property rights. PLOS ONE,19(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298913
  60. Rifqi, M., Roisah, K., & Lestari, S. N. (2023). The Prospects of Intellectual Property Rights as a Credit Collateral: An Indonesia-Singapore Comparative Study. Jurnal Hukum Novelty, 14(2),170-191. https://doi.org/10.26555/novelty.v14i2.a27017
  61. Righi, C., & Simcoe, T. (2019). Patent examiner specialization. Research Policy, 48(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.003
  62. Rizky, R., & Rahayu, M. I. F. (2025). Efektivitas Pengawasan Pemerintah Daerah Terhadap Kualitas Air Sungai: Studi Kasus Pencemaran Sungai Brantas Jawa Timur. USRAH: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Islam, 6(2),227–236. https://doi.org/10.46773/usrah.v6i2.2123
  63. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Di Cataldo, M. (2015). Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(4), 673–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu023
  64. Roisah, K. (2015). Kebijakan Hukum “Tranferability” Terhadap Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia. Jurnal Law Reform, 11(2), 241–254. Https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v11i2.15772
  65. Roisah, K. (2017). Understanding trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement: From hard and soft law perspective. Hasanuddin Law Review, 3(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v3i3.1153
  66. Roisah, K. (2018). Employee-Inventor’s Right to Compensation in Patent Law System in Indonesia and some Countries. Journal of Advanced Research In Law And Economics,9(7),2415-2424. DOI: 10.14505//jarle.v9.7(37).28
  67. Roisah, K., & Setiyono, J. (2019). Penerapan Trademark Dilution pada Penegakan Perlindungan Hukum Hak Merek Terkenal di Indonesia. Law Reform, 15(2), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v15i2.26188
  68. Roisah, K., Rahayu, Darminto, Zainol, Z. A., & Suryani, L. S. (2022). Governance And Regulation Of Local Working Requirement And Importation: Pharmaceutical Industry Study. Journal of Governance and Regulation,11(3),61-69. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv11i3art6
  69. Roisah, K., Rahayu, R., & Rachmanda, D. (2023). The Working Patent and Pharmaceutical Industry Development in Indonesia. Review of Economics and Finance, 21(1), 304-315. https://doi.org/10.55365/1923.x2023.21.29
  70. Saija, R., Berlianty, T., & Radjawane, P. (2021). Pengobatan Alternatif Tradisional Untuk Mencegah Penularan Covid-19 Menurut Perspektif Hukum Kekayaan Intelektual Di Kota Ambon. SASI, 27(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v27i2.438
  71. Saputra, I. (2025a). Pentingnya Klaim Dalam Permohonan Paten Sederhana Menurut Undang-Undang Paten. Jurnal Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Cileungsi, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.37373/jh.v1i1.1890
  72. Saputra, A. (2025b). Optimalisasi Kebijakan Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual Dalam Era Digital Dengan Strategi Hukum Untuk Mendorong Inovasi Dan Daya Saing Nasional. Syntax Idea, 7(3), 414–420. https://doi.org/10.46799/syntaxidea.v7i3.12681
  73. Schankerman, M., & Schuett, F. (2022). Patent Screening, Innovation, and Welfare. The Review of Economic Studies, 89(4), 2101–2148. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab073
  74. Sharma, R. (2015). Influence of Patent Policy in the South on the Research and Development of the North: Exploration of the Foreign Direct Investment Channel. The Journal of World Intellectual Property,18,29-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12029
  75. Sudirman, L & Disemadi, H. S. (2021). Comparing patent protection in Indonesia with that in Singapore and Hong Kong. Legality, 29(2), 200-222. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v29i2.15680
  76. Sulistianingsih, D., Adhi, Y. P., Lestari, D. P., & Yusoff, R. B. M. (2025). Dealing with A State of Emergency: A Comparative Study Between Indonesia and Malaysia in Government Use for Pharmaceutical Products. International Law Discourse in Southeast Asia, 4(2), 79-112. Article 29671. https://doi.org/10.15294/ildisea.v5i2.29671
  77. Stepanov, I. (2020). Economic development dimension of intellectual property as investment in international investment law. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(5–6),736–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12171
  78. Syafrida, S. (2019). Pentingnya Perlindungan Hukum Paten Warga Negara Asing Di Wilayah Indonesia Guna Meningkatkan Investasi Asing. ADIL: Jurnal Hukum, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.33476/ajl.v10i1.1067
  79. Syamhadi, S., Adiman, M. F., & Dewi, R. S. (2023). Analisis Penyelesaian Sengketa Secara Litigasi Paten terhadap Perkembangan Inovasi Teknologi di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan HAM Wara Sains,2(12),1191–1200. https://doi.org/10.58812/jhhws.v2i12.873
  80. Syarief, A. O., & Pratiwi, M. (2025). Aspek Hukum Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual di Industri Teknologi. ULIL ALBAB : Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin, 4(2), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.56799/jim.v4i2.6645
  81. Utama, K. W. (2012). Manfaat Lisensi Paten bagi Industri Teknologi dan Informasi Indonesia. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 41(3), 385-391. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.41.3.2012.385-391
  82. Viglioni, M. T. D., Calegario, C. L. L., Aveline, C. E. S., Ferreira, M. P., Borini, F. M., & Bruhn, N. C. P. (2023). Effects of intellectual property rights on innovation and economic activity: A non-linear perspective from Latin America. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 67, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.09.001
  83. Vishnubhakat, S., Rai, A. K., & Kesan, J. P. (2016). Strategic Decision Making in Dual PTAB and District Court Proceedings. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 31(1), 45. https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127412?v=pdf
  84. Waspiah, W, Santoso, B., Prananingtyas, P., Baiquni, M.I., & Saputra, D.E. (2023). Indonesian Patent Law Reform for Simple Patent Innovations on Achieving Welfare State Objectives. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies, 8(1), 199-242. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v8i2.69214
  85. Waspiah, W., Santoso, B., Prananingtyas, P., Taduri, J. N. A., & Arifin, R. (2022). Technological advancement on patent registration in Indonesia. In R. Arifin, A. Niravita, S. H. Idris, & R. Wulansarie (Eds.), IJALS Symposium on Technological Advancement for Social Welfare - Technological Advancement for Social Welfare: Contemporary Development and the Future Impact Article 030023-1 (AIP Conference Proceedings; Vol. 2573). American Institute of Physics Inc. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0104090
  86. William, M., & Fengrong, W. (2022). Economic policy uncertainty and industry innovation: Cross country evidence. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 84, 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2022.01.012
  87. Wole, B. D., Purwatiningsih, A., & Kamaluddin, K. (2021). Iklim Investasi dalam Penyelesaiannya Penerapan Omnibus Law. Jurnal Inovasi Ilmu Sosial Dan Politik (JISoP),3(2),118–127. https://doi.org/10.33474/jisop.v3i2.10989
  88. Yan, T. (2024). Singapore Innovation Economy: Present and Future. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 35, 532–538. https://doi.org/10.54097/8evf4w06
  89. Yang, D., & Sonmez, M. (2013). Integration and divergence of patent systems across national and international institutions. Journal of World Business, 48(4), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.09.008
  90. Zhang, G., Xiong, L., Duan, H., & Huang, D. (2020). Obtaining certainty vs. creating uncertainty: Does firms’ patent filing strategy work as expected?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120234
  91. Zingg, R., & Elsner, E. (2020). Protection heterogeneity in a harmonized European patent system. European Journal of Law and Economics,50(1),87–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09651-9
  92. Zou, L., & Zhu, Y. (2024). What mode is conducive to an effective regional IP regime? Evidence from intellectual property courts in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications,11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04156-1
  93. Pratomo, M., & Hastiadi, F. F. (2017). Patent Rights Protection System and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Developing Countries. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Indonesian Economy and Development (ICIED 2017) (pp.37–42). Atlantis Pres. https://doi.org/10.2991/icied-17.2018.8
  94. Rahayu, Roisah, K., Ramadhan, D. A., & Suryani, L. S. (2023). Fulfillment of public health access post amendment to law number 13 of 2016 on patents. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2722(1), Article 080010. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0142994
  95. Cheng, D., & Zhao, L. (2025). Main Amendments of Chinese Intellectual Property Law. In D. Cheng, X. Yu, & K. Bacher (Eds.), New Progress of Regulations and Judicial Practice of Intellectual Property (pp. 1–121). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-6095-4_1
  96. National Research Council. (2003). Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/10770
  97. Lamping, M., & Rademacher, C. (2023). 26 Patent litigation strategies in Germany: Maneuvering the evolving landscape of bifurcation. In D. Matthews & P. Torremans (Eds.), European Patent Law: The Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Convention (pp. 423–446). De Gruyter. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110781687-026/html
  98. Loon, N.-L. W. (2023). Chapter 2: Intellectual property law in Singapore. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035308392.00007
  99. OECD. (2015). Boosting Malaysia’s National Intellectual Property System for Innovation. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264239227-en
  100. Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2013). Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No.2013/03, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4522wkw1r8-en
  101. Stanley, A., & Khatri, L. V. (2023). The Future of Arbitration in Intellectual Property Disputes- An Opportunity for India’s Growth and Resilience. Cambridge Open Engage. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2023-cdncs

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.