On October 28, 2024, Indonesia officially amended its existing Patent Law when the president ratified Law Number 65 of 2024. This comprehensive update—the third such amendment in the history of Indonesia’s Patent Law—introduces several key changes that will significantly impact patent protection and application processes in Indonesia. Key highlights and changes are outlined below. Definition of Invention The new law broadens the definition of “invention” to explicitly include systems, methods, and uses. Additionally, the law introduces formal definitions for traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Patentability Criteria Notable changes include: Computer programs are now excluded, with an exception for computer-implemented inventions. Theories and methods in science and mathematics are added to the list of excluded inventions. Previous restrictions on new uses of existing products are removed. Grace Periods The grace periods for some patent-related actions have been adjusted: The grace period for disclosures has been extended to 12 months (from 6 months previously), providing inventors with more flexibility in filing patent applications after initial disclosure. A newly introduced item is the grace period for a conventional patent application claiming priority rights, which is 4 months after the 12-month filing deadline under the Paris Convention. The grace period for annuity payments is 6 months (from 12 months previously) with a fine for late payments of 100% of the annual fee payable. Patent Holder Rights and Obligations Patent holders can now grant permissions to enforce patents. There is a new requirement for patent holders to submit annual statements on patent implementation in Indonesia. Compulsory Licensing Significant changes to compulsory licensing include: Establishment of licenses based on the principle of expediency. Limitations on license scope and transferability. Prioritization of domestic market needs. New provisions for technical improvements and economic significance. Government Patent Exploitation The new law contains specific provisions for the government’s implementation

In Thailand, a business rehabilitation plan in court-supervised rehabilitation proceedings is a crucial element of the business rehabilitation process that outlines how a debtor’s assets will be managed. It also provides guidance for resolving a debtor’s business challenges so that the business can survive and continue to generate returns, increasing the likelihood that its creditors will be repaid. Key Plan Components The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets forth the following components to be covered in a rehabilitation plan: The reasons for rehabilitation; Details about the debtor’s assets, liabilities, and other binding obligations at the time the court-ordered rehabilitation; Principles and methods of the rehabilitation; Redemption of collateral when there are secured creditors and guarantor liabilities; Ways to resolve problems arising from a temporary lack of liquidity during plan implementation; Action to be taken when a claim or debt is assigned; Name, qualifications, and letter of consent of the plan administrator, as well as information on compensation; Appointment and release of the plan administrator; Period in which the plan will be implemented (maximum of five years); and Refusal of the debtor’s assets or refusal of contractual rights if the debtor’s assets or contractual rights have obligations that exceed the benefits they yield. Considering the diverse nature and challenges of each debtor’s business, the details listed here are only general guidelines for what should be included in a rehabilitation plan. The planner has the flexibility to create a plan with different details or guidelines than those outlined above to best suit the nature and challenges of the debtor’s business. The planner can also omit some of the mentioned requirements if they are not relevant to the debtor’s business. Concerns of Relevance Court approval of the rehabilitation plan. Once the plan is approved by a meeting of the creditors, it is necessary

Trademark registration for marks composed of combinations of Roman letters and/or Arabic numerals has long been challenging in Thailand, particularly for those that are neither stylised nor pronounceable. There have been conflicting perspectives regarding the interpretation of “invented letter(s) and numeral(s)” under Section 7 of the Thai Trademark Act. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has considered that letters and numerals must feature notable visual enhancements to be inherently distinctive, and “invented” must be in the form of stylisation, such as overlapping or interlocking letters, or intricate designs like traditional Thai oral patterns or geometric motifs. Some examples of acceptable letter and numeral marks according to the DIP The courts, however, have consistently recognised that three-letter marks, even when presented without stylisation, can be inherently distinctive. The rationale is that these marks, viewed as random and unusual combinations, can in many cases be distinguishable from common words and sufficient for the public to identify the associated goods/services, and distinguish them from others. Following Supreme Court precedents on registrability, the DIP officially updated its Examination Guidelines in January 2022 to recognise that combinations of three or more letters, even if not stylised or forming pronounceable words, can be deemed inherently distinctive. Challenges persist, however, for two-letter marks, which still face significant obstacles in achieving registrability. The JD case Background Beijing Jing Dong 360 Du E-Commerce, one of China’s largest e-commerce companies, led trademark applications for the marks JD.COM (and device) and JD.CO.TH (and device) for services in Class 35 related to advertising and business management: The registrar rejected the applications, citing insufficient stylisation of ‘JD’ and describing ‘.com’ and ‘.co.th’ as common descriptive terms. The applicant appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which upheld the refusal, echoing the registrar’s reasoning and asserting that the marks were devoid of inherent distinctiveness