Strengthening Commercial Court Judges’ Knowledge in Handling Patent Claim Disputes: A Comparison Between Japan and Indonesia.

Abstract

This study aims to identify the substantive challenges that Commercial Court judges face when making decisions in patent claim disputes within the Indonesian Commercial Courts. These difficulties arise from the close link between patent claims and novel technological inventions. In Indonesia, However, the performance of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms for patent disputes has been underwhelming, and they do not appear poised to become the primary resolution approach. The research primarily relies on a literature review, but also includes interviews with Commercial Court judges in Central Jakarta, and Japanese Judges in Japan IP Court, and patent Examiner in Japan Patent Office, to confirm the findings. From this study, Japan's system, which involves Court Researchers and an Expert Committee, has been found to provide judges with greater confidence and expertise in handling patent disputes. The Japanese model incorporates technical experts who assist the court in understanding the complexities of patent claims and novel technological inventions, which helps the judges make more informed decisions. This paper will explore the key features of the Japanese patent litigation system and examine how they could be adapted to address the challenges faced by the Indonesian Commercial Courts.

INTRODUCTION

Manuscripts Resolving patent disputes in Indonesia is currently grappling with increasingly complex challenges, driven by the rapid advancement of high technology in fields like pharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things.[1] This complexity not only involves intricate technical aspects but also demands a robust understanding of the legal principles governing patents, encompassing issues related to novelty, inventive step, scope, and patent-ability of claims.[2]

The economic impact of patents is significant, as they serve as a critical mechanism for incentive's innovation and technological progress.[3] It has also big effect on environment.[4] The problem of environmental degradation stemming from illegal logging and the misutilization of water resources.[5] However, the patent system in Indonesia, as in many other developing countries, faces a range of difficulties, including limited awareness among the general public, complex legal procedures, and the high costs associated with patent acquisition and enforcement.[6]

In this context, the sources examined in this research paper provide valuable insights into the challenges and dynamics of patent disputes in Indonesia, particularly in comparison to the patent landscape in Japan. Amid this dynamic, Indonesia has established the Commercial Court as a specialized institution to handle cases related to intellectual property, including patents. The Supreme Court has also developed a certification training system for prospective judges who will serve in the Commercial Court. However, despite these efforts, the challenges faced in resolving patent disputes remain significant.[7]

One of the main issues is the limited duration of judge training, which only lasts for 14 days. This time frame is highly inadequate to equip judges with the knowledge and skills necessary to handle complex patent disputes.[8] In patent disputes, judges must have a deep understanding of various technical and legal aspects, including patent infringement, patent cancellation, as well as the assessment of novelty and inventive steps in a claim. This complexity is further exacerbated by the rapid development of technology, which demands that judges continuously update their knowledge to deliver fair and accurate rulings.[9]

Previous research in Indonesia has primarily focused on the aspects of patent registration and recognition, as well as the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional medicines.[10] [11] While these areas are important, there has been limited research that specifically addresses the challenges faced by Commercial Court judges in resolving patent disputes.This study aims to fill this gap by examining the difficulties encountered by judges in comprehending the technical and legal complexities involved in patent cases.[12] By understanding these challenges, policymakers and stakeholders can work towards strengthening the capabilities of the judiciary to effectively handle patent litigation and ensure fair and informed rulings. However, research that specifically addresses the difficulties faced by Commercial Court judges in handling patent disputes is still very limited. Therefore, this study holds significant novelty, focusing on the challenges faced by Commercial Court judges in resolving patent disputes in Indonesia.

This study not only identifies the challenges faced by Commercial Court judges but also compares them with the mechanisms for resolving patent disputes in the Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo, Japan.In Japan, the Court Researcher and Expert Commission systems are employed to involve technology experts in the patent dispute assessment process.[13] With the support of competent experts, judges can be more confident in making decisions and delivering rulings that satisfy the parties involved in the dispute.[14]

A comparison of the satisfaction levels among parties in disputes before the Intellectual Property Courts of Japan and Indonesia is significantly reflected in the rates of appeal submissions in the two countries. In Japan, an appeal rate of 21.9 percent indicates that the majority of parties are relatively satisfied with decisions at the first instance, reflecting a high level of trust in an efficient and transparent judicial process. Conversely, in Indonesia, the appeal rate reaches 49.85 percent, suggesting that nearly half of the parties are dissatisfied and thus compelled to pursue further legal remedies. This phenomenon highlights significant challenges within the Indonesian judicial system, which are likely influenced by perceptions of inconsistent rulings, prolonged legal proceedings, or legal uncertainty. Accordingly, the appeal rate implicitly underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation and enhancement of the quality of Indonesia's judiciary in order to achieve a higher degree of public trust.

This research is expected to provide better understanding to the Supreme Court and the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) of Indonesia regarding the importance of evaluating and strengthening judges' capabilities in handling patent cases.[15] One of the recommendations from this research is the possibility of collaboration with DGIP to assign senior patent examiners to assist the Commercial Court. The inability of judges to comprehend the substance of patent claim disputes may lead to public distrust in the commercial court system.[16] Therefore, this issue must be addressed seriously to avoid unreasonable rulings in the future.

This research will focus on enhancing judges' ability to understand the substance of patent disputes, either independently or with the help of neutral parties not tied to the disputing parties. This is crucial, as judges are expected to assess disputes based on substantive matters, not merely on the completeness of legal formalities.[9] While other challenges, such as the difficulty in obtaining competent expert witnesses and the time constraints imposed by law, are also present, this study will prioritize addressing the judges' capacity to comprehend the technical and legal complexities involved in patent cases in Indonesia.

In patent litigation, the involvement of expert witnesses is a crucial and commonly practiced element in order to substantiate technical or substantively complex aspects of a case. Expert witnesses serve to assist judges in understanding the technical and specific features of the invention that is the subject of the dispute. In Indonesia, the legal basis for the involvement of expert witnesses in patent cases before the Commercial Court is explicitly regulated in Article 145 of Law Number 13 of 2016 on Patents, which stipulates that judges may hear expert testimony to gain clarity on the core issues of the dispute relating to the technical aspects of the invention. This provision aligns with Article 154 of the HIR (Herzien Inlandsch Reglement), which allows judges to appoint expert witnesses at the request of either party or on their own initiative. However, in practice, expert witnesses are typically presented by the disputing parties themselves.

According to Supreme Court Regulation Number 7 of 2022, which amends a previous regulation, the party presenting a witness or expert must cover the costs associated with their participation, including summoning and transportation. This financial arrangement creates the potential for bias, as expert witnesses may feel inclined to favor the party that hired them. As a result, the impartiality of these experts is frequently questioned, which could undermine public confidence in the decisions made by the Commercial Court.

In contrast, the Japanese patent adjudication system, following the revision of the Code of Civil Procedure through Act Number 108 of 2003 (Heisei 15), which amended Act Number 109 of 1996 (enacted on June 26, Heisei 8), introduced the Technical Expert System as part of its amendments. This system, implemented from April 2004, aims to enhance the examination and assessment processes in specialized litigation such as intellectual property cases, where technical and specialized issues are often central to the dispute. Within this framework, experts with in-depth knowledge in relevant fields are invited to participate in the litigation process. During issue formation and other procedural stages, they provide explanations to judges and litigating parties from a fair and neutral standpoint, serving as expert advisors.

The Supreme Court appoints specialized technical professionals as non-permanent civil servants. These experts, upon their appointment, gain civil servant status, but unlike regular court staff, they are not obligated to be present in court daily. Instead, they only participate in specific cases assigned to them. The Supreme Court designates the court they are affiliated with, and that court assigns them to cases on an individual basis. Technical experts serve a two-year term. Through this system, it is anticipated that the court's assessments and evaluations of complex and specialized technical issues will be conducted with greater precision and efficiency, thereby enhancing public trust in judicial outcomes.

METHOD

This study employs a normative-empirical legal research methodology, which combines an analysis of legal rules, principles, doctrines, and concepts (the normative approach) with the use of empirical data derived from social reality, such as through interviews (the empirical approach). The data collection process involves conducting document reviews and employing a qualitative analysis approach.[17] Additionally, interviews were conducted with several commercial court judges to confirm the understanding of the legal materials used.[18] Comparative interviews with Japanese judges from the Japan IP High Court and patent examiners from the Japan Patent Office were also conducted. The choice of this research methodology is based on the need to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects and judicial practices related to patent disputes.[19] The normative juridical approach allows for an in-depth exploration of the relevant laws, regulations, and case law, while the interviews provide valuable insights into the practical implementation of these legal frameworks.

The legal materials utilized in this research include primary legal sources, such as the 1945 Constitution, Law No. 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents. Furthermore, secondary legal materials, including studies or expert opinions that explain these primary legal materials, were also utilized. Additionally, tertiary legal materials, such as dictionaries, were used to provide further explanation and understanding of the primary and secondary legal materials.

In order to obtain in-depth empirical data regarding judicial practices in the resolution of patent and intellectual property disputes, the author conducted a series of direct interviews with key stakeholders possessing authority and practical experience in the field. The author directly interviewed four judges from the Central Jakarta Commercial Court who preside over patent cases and other intellectual property matters. These interviews were conducted on two separate dates: January 7, 2023 and June 7, 2024. The goal of these interviews was to investigate the judges' viewpoints on the technical difficulties encountered in adjudicating patent cases, as well as the potential for regulatory reform to guarantee substantive justice.

Moreover, an interview was carried out on August 8, 2023, with a judge from the Business Court in Tokyo, Japan. This interview sought to investigate Japan's judicial framework in the domain of intellectual property, with a particular focus on the role of technical experts in judicial decision-making, which may serve as a comparative reference for practices in Indonesia. The author conducted an interview at the Japan Patent Office in Tokyo with a Patent Examiner who had previously served as a Technical Expert within the judiciary. The interview, which took place on October 28, 2024, centered on the role and contribution of technical experts in supporting judges' comprehension of the technical facets of patent cases. The author personally conducted all interviews, which formed a crucial component of the qualitative data collection that underpins the normative and comparative analysis discussed in this paper.

DISCUSSION

Indonesia has updated its patent legislation. The country enacted Law Number 65 of 2024, which represents the third revision to the Patent Law (Law Number 13 of 2016). This latest amendment, promulgated on October 28, 2024, focuses on expediting the patent registration procedure, mandating local implementation of patents, and incorporating provisions related to Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge.

However, this law does not accommodate updates to the procedural laws governing patent disputes, particularly regarding the involvement of impartial and autonomous technical experts from the parties in contention. Consequently, enhancing the judiciary's role in delivering justice in patent disputes has not been prioritized in this regulatory amendment. This suggests that aspects of law enforcement and patent dispute resolution still necessitate further attention to ensure the achievement of substantive justice for the parties concerned.

The importance of protecting inventions through patents in Indonesia has seen a significant increase over the past six years. According to data from the Directorate General of Intellectual Property of Indonesia, the number of domestic patent applications has increased annually, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. History in the number of registered patents in Indonesia. Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, 2024.[20]

Year	Domestic	Overseas	Total
2018	2.862 (25,32)	8.440 (74,68%)	11.302
2019	4.167 (33,07%)	8.435 (66,93%)	12.602
2020	3.544 (32,64%)	7.313 (67,36%)	10.857
2021	4.620 (37,06%)	7.847 (62,94%)	12.467
2022	5.573 (39,64%)	8.485 (60,36%)	14.058
2023	6.051 (40,25%)	8.982 (59,75%)	15.033

The increase in the number of domestic patent applications reflects the growing awareness among the Indonesian public of the importance of protecting inventions. This trend has been driven by government efforts through education and outreach programs, which have helped to raise awareness and understanding of the value of intellectual property protection. Globalization and global economic integration have also contributed to this awareness, particularly through exposure to practices in developed countries and increased foreign investment.

Patent granting in Indonesia can be pursued through two main schemes: the PCT scheme and the non-PCT scheme. Over the past six years, data has shown a significant difference in the number of patents granted through these two schemes. This data provides valuable insights into the trends in patent granting in Indonesia based on the PCT and Non-PCT schemes, as shown in Table 2. The PCT scheme has consistently held a higher ercentage of patents granted compared to the non-PCT scheme, reflecting the preference of many patent applicants, particularly multinational companies, to protect their innovations internationally by utilizing the PCT scheme to secure protection in multiple countries, including Indonesia, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of Non-PCT/PCT Patent Application Schemes in Indonesia. Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, 2024.[20]

Year	Non-PCT	PCT	Total
2018	2.659 (39.69%)	4.040 (60.31%)	6,699
2019	2.852 (42.57%)	8.348 (74.51%)	11,200
2020	2.162 (32.27%)	6.536 (74.98%)	8,698
2021	2.469 (36.86%)	5.130 (66.57%)	7,599
2022	1.795 (26.80%)	3.298 (63.44%)	5,093
2023	3.267 (38,61%)	5.195 (61.39%)	8,462

The patents granted through the non-PCT scheme have shown fluctuations, despite the dominance of the PCT scheme. In 2022, the number of patents granted under the non-PCT scheme reached its lowest point, but then increased again to 38.61 percent in 2023. This suggests a sustained interest from local patent applicants or those focused on domestic patent protection. The dominance of the PCT scheme can be attributed to economic factors, where large, internationally operating companies are more likely to use this scheme. Conversely, the lower-cost non-PCT scheme may be more appealing to small and medium-sized enterprises or individual innovators focused on local protection, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of Size of Patentee Company. Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, 2024. [20]

Year	Non MSME	MSME	Total
2018	9,309 (82,37%)	1,992 (17,63%)	11.302
2019	9,331 (73,76%)	3,320 (26,24%)	12.602
2020	8,152 (75,04%)	2,712 (24,96%)	10.857
2021	8,691 (69,69%)	3,780 (30,31%)	12.467
2022	9,419 (66,99%)	4,642 (33,01%)	14.058
2023	9.942 (66,13%)	5.091 (33.87%)	15.033

The Table 3 data indicate a consistent increase in patent applications by Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) from 2018 to 2023. The proportion of patent applications from MSMEs rose from 17.63 percent in 2018 to 33.87 percent in 2023. This trend suggests that MSMEs are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of intellectual property protection and are actively seeking patents to safeguard their innovations. The trend in patent applications in Indonesia has shown a significant increase in MSME participation, although non-MSMEs remain dominant. This increase reflects the growing awareness among MSMEs of the importance of protecting their innovations. Continuous support from the government and related institutions will be key to ensuring that MSMEs can continue to develop and contribute more substantially to Indonesia's intellectual property system, which is crucial for driving sustainable economic growth and innovation in the country.

The comparison of the countries of origin from which the patent applicants originate can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of the Countries of Origin of Patents Registered in Indonesia 1991-2023. Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, 2024. [20]

No	COUNTRY	NUMBER OF PATENT GRANTED
1	Japan	27333
2	United States of America	18306
3	Indonesia	12516
4	Germany	5635
5	Netherlands	4424
6	Switzerland	4100
7	Republic of Korea	4075
8	France	2937
9	China	2844
10	United Kingdom	2289

The data on patent grants in Indonesia based on the country of origin during the period from 1991 to 2023 provides valuable insights into the patterns and trends of intellectual property protection in Indonesia. It explores the distribution of patents granted to applicants from various countries and the implications of this data within the context of global economics and innovation, as well as its significance for the Indonesian economy and development.

Japan and the United States lead the rankings with a significant number of patents granted in Indonesia. Japan received 27,333 patents, while the United States obtained 18,306 patents. This dominance reflects the technological and innovative strength of these two economic powerhouses, as well as their keen interest in protecting their intellectual property in the growing and potentially lucrative Indonesian market.

Indonesia ranks third with 12,516 patents granted, indicating that local Indonesian innovators are also actively protecting their inventions. This is a positive sign that the innovation ecosystem in Indonesia is growing, although there remains a significant gap compared to the patent grants received by Japan and the United States, underscoring the need for continued investment and support in domestic research and development.

The fact that advanced economies have a significant number of patents granted in Indonesia suggests that the country is regarded as an important and strategic market for innovation protection. This may be driven by Indonesia's significant economic growth, increasing industrial competitiveness, and the potential for future market expansion.

Patent Dispute Resolution in Indonesia

Indonesia offers several recognized institutions for resolving patent disputes, including Mediation, Arbitration, and Court Litigation. These dispute resolution methods are formally acknowledged within the legal framework, though they demonstrate varying levels of effectiveness and performance in practice. Mediation has been promoted as a preferred approach for patent disputes in Indonesia. The recent Patent Law mandates mediation as the first step before proceeding to litigation. However, the success of mediation has been limited, with parties often bypassing this process and escalating disputes directly to the courts. Arbitration represents another option for patent dispute resolution in Indonesia. This method has shown more promising results, with the Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia handling a growing number of intellectual property cases. The confidentiality and specialized expertise of arbitrators make arbitration an attractive choice for companies seeking to resolve patent disputes expeditiously and avoid public scrutiny. Finally, court litigation remains the most commonly utilized pathway for patent disputes in Indonesia.

Mediation

Mediation, involving parties seeking to resolve disputes with the assistance of a neutral third-party mediator, offers a more flexible and less costly alternative to litigation, arbitration, and expert decisions. The process is confidential, preventing any disclosed information from being used as evidence in subsequent court proceedings. This confidentiality encourages open communication, allowing mediators to understand both parties' interests and propose mutually acceptable solutions. In these cases, the need for legal enforceability and definitive compensation is critical, and mediation falls short in providing the necessary resolution.[21] Despite its advantages, mediation has yet to prove an effective method for resolving patent disputes in Indonesia, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. The Low Success Rate of Mediation in Indonesian District Courts. Source: Indonesia Supreme Court, Annual Report. 2024

Year	Number of Cases	Succeed	Not Succeed	Not Implemented	On Process
2021	39,888	1,187 (2.9%)	16,251 (40.7%)	21,193 (53.1%)	1,257 (3.3%)
2022	40,551	1362 (3,36%)	16,985 (41,89%)	20,863 (51,45%)	1341 (3,31%)

The performance of mediation in Indonesian district courts remains suboptimal, as demonstrated by the data from 2021 and 2022. In 2021, out of the 39,888 cases subjected to mediation, only 1,187 were successfully resolved, indicating a success rate of just 2.97 percent. In contrast, the failure rate was significantly higher, with 16,251 cases, or 40.75 percent, failing to reach a settlement. Moreover, a staggering 53.1 percent of cases, or 21,193, could not be implemented due to various obstacles, underscoring the ineffectiveness of the mediation process. Meanwhile, 1,257 cases, or 3.15 percent, remained ongoing. The situation showed little improvement in 2022, as the number of cases slightly increased to 40,551. The success rate marginally improved to 1,362 cases, or 3.36 percent. However, the failure rate climbed to 16,985 cases, or 41.87 percent, while the majority, 20,863 cases or 51.47 percent, again could not proceed with mediation.

Arbitration

Arbitration is widely recognized in Indonesia as a non-litigation alternative dispute resolution method. The historical roots of arbitration in Indonesia date back to the Dutch East Indies period, as reflected in Article 377 HIR or Article 705 RBg, indicating its early regulation within the Indonesian legal system. These provisions allowed parties in dispute to refer their cases to arbitrators, who would adjudicate based on agreed principles. Since Indonesia's independence, arbitration has continued to play a significant role in law enforcement, supported by several legal frameworks, including the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Act No. 30 of 1999.

Arbitration has been utilized in Indonesia for decades, with its origins tracing back to the colonial era. During the Dutch East Indies period, the legal framework, specifically Article 377 of the HIR and Article 705 of the RBg, recognized the right of parties in dispute to refer their cases to arbitrators. These arbitrators would then adjudicate the disputes based on principles agreed upon by the parties involved. This early incorporation of arbitration within the Indonesian legal system has contributed to its continued prominence as an alternative dispute resolution method, even after the country's independence.[22]

The Indonesian National Arbitration Board (Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia: BANI) was established on December 3, 1977, through the efforts of Subekti, Harjono Tjitrosubono, and Abubakar. BANI was founded as an autonomous and independent institution dedicated to resolving commercial disputes. As a judicial body, BANI operates independently with the aim of providing equitable and efficient resolution of civil disputes related to trade, industry, and finance. Headquartered in Jakarta, BANI has expanded its presence with representative offices in major Indonesian cities, including Surabaya, Denpasar, Bandung, Medan, Pontianak, Palembang, and Batam. However, BANI's experience in resolving patent disputes has been limited, as it has primarily focused on commercial disputes rather than specialized intellectual property cases.[23] However, BANI lacks substantial evidence or factual basis to demonstrate its competence in resolving Intellectual Property disputes. The Intellectual Property Rights Arbitration and Mediation Board (Badan Arbitrase dan Mediasi Hak Kekayaan Intelektual: BAM HKI), was established on April 19, 2012, and is based in Jakarta. This institution offers both adjudicative dispute resolution services, such as arbitration, as well as non-adjudicative services, including mediation, negotiation, and conciliation, for disputes arising from commercial transactions or relationships in the intellectual property rights sector. However, the effectiveness of BAM HKI in resolving patent disputes has been met with some dissatisfaction. To enhance arbitration's role in resolving patent disputes, reforms are necessary. These may include increasing the specialization of arbitration panels by recruiting and training arbitrators with in-depth knowledge of patent law, promoting arbitration as a viable and expedient dispute resolution mechanism in the intellectual property sector through targeted outreach and education campaigns,[23] and improving coordination between BANI, BAM-HKI.

Court Litigation

Indonesia ratified the Patent Cooperation Treaty through Presidential Decree No. 16 of 1997 and subsequently ratified the TRIPs Agreement via Law No. 7 of 1994 as part of its obligations as a WTO member. The TRIPs Agreement establishes general standards for intellectual property enforcement, although it does not mandate uniformity across national legal systems, allowing for flexibility with terms like "fair," "equitable," and "undue." In Indonesia, legal enforcement, particularly in civil matters related to patents, adheres to the principles set out in TRIPs, emphasizing fairness and equity, as reflected in both Indonesian procedural law and judicial practices.[24] Judges are expected to apply these principles rigorously to deliver justice in a timely and impartial manner, while also possessing the necessary knowledge and experience to adjudicate patent cases effectively. Despite these efforts, the Indonesian judiciary still faces difficulties in effectively handling patent-related disputes. Judges sometimes struggle to assess technical evidence and claims, highlighting the need for continued training and specialization in the adjudication of complex intellectual property matters.[25]

The Commercial Court, a specialized division within the Central Jakarta, Surabaya, Semarang, Medan, and Makassar District Courts, handles intellectual property cases, bankruptcy, and unfair competition law as a first-instance court. This court's jurisdiction is limited to civil and administrative matters involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs, and layout designs of integrated circuits, while criminal IP cases are handled by district courts across Indonesia. The Judicial Training Center, operating under the Supreme Court, provides a range of educational programs for judges and court personnel, including basic training for future judges, advanced training for current judges, and specialized programs tailored to specific needs. Among these initiatives are short-term outstation training, introductory courses, qualification training for commercial court judges, and advanced courses targeting those in commercial courts. To ensure legal professionals are adequately prepared to manage intellectual property cases, the center develops comprehensive certification programs encompassing curriculum design, syllabus preparation, and instruction by experienced trainers.[26] Regarding the number of patent disputes in Japan and Indonesia from 2018 to 2021, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Comparison of the Number Patent Cases between Indonesia and Japan. Source: IP Dispute Resolution.[27]

Year	Japan	Indonesia
2018	495	5
2019	511	4
2020	493	3
2021	611	3

The data provided highlights a stark contrast in the number of patent disputes between Japan and Indonesia from 2018 to 2021. Japan consistently recorded over 490 patent disputes annually, peaking at 611 cases in 2021. In contrast, Indonesia saw significantly fewer disputes, with the highest number being 5 cases in 2018, declining to just 3 cases per year by 2020 and 2021. The significant discrepancy in patent dispute cases can be attributed to several factors. Japan's well-established intellectual property system, with a long history of patent registrations and enforcement, contributes to a higher incidence of disputes, especially given the country's advanced economy and technological innovation, particularly in sectors like electronics and automotive. Japan's robust legal infrastructure, including specialized IP courts, further supports frequent litigation. Conversely, Indonesia, while experiencing economic growth, has a less mature technological and industrial base, leading to fewer patent applications and disputes. Additionally, Indonesia's developing legal framework and cultural preferences for alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation, contribute to the lower number of patent disputes compared to Japan.

Legal Challenges in the Adjudication of Patent Claim Disputes by Judges of the Indonesian Commercial Court.

Interviews with judges from the Central Jakarta Commercial Court revealed significant challenges in adjudicating patent claim disputes. Although patent cases make up only around 5 percent of the judges’ annual caseload—averaging 400 cases each year—they are often the most time-consuming due to their technical complexity. The interviewed judges, each with over 20 years of judicial experience, acknowledged that patent litigation demands a much deeper understanding of specialized knowledge than other intellectual property cases, such as trademarks. These findings highlight the unique difficulties faced by judges in resolving patent disputes and the need for enhanced technical and procedural support. Complexity of Patent Cases and the Lack of prior judicial precedents.

Patents differ significantly from other forms of intellectual property, such as trademarks or copyrights. The technical complexity of certain inventions, spanning from information technology and biotechnology to industrial engineering, necessitates that judges possess a comprehensive understanding of the nuances of novelty and inventive step, which are often the most challenging elements to establish. Unfortunately, the jurisprudence on patents in Indonesia remains limited, making it difficult for judges to find relevant precedents for reference. This further exacerbates the challenges faced by judges, the majority of whom have legal, rather than technical or scientific, academic backgrounds. Consequently, in addition to comprehending the regulatory dimensions of intellectual property laws, judges must investigate the technological foundation underlying patents. This is a challenging endeavor, as sophisticated technological materials are replete with specialized vocabulary and scientific principles that typically fall outside the scope of legal professionals' expertise. In such instances, judges frequently rely on expert testimony to gain clarity.

Time Constraints and the Crucial Role of Expert Testimony, Under Indonesian procedural law, court hearings are subject to statutory time limitations. For particular commercial controversies, there is a legal mandate necessitating the resolution of cases within a stipulated timeframe, adhering to the principle of expeditious and efficient adjudication. Nevertheless, in the context of technically intricate patent cases, this requirement may prove counterproductive. Comprehending dense subject matter, undertaking comprehensive research, and convening multiple hearings to acquire expert testimony all necessitate substantial time investments. Expert testimony is critical at this stage. Judges lacking technical expertise rely extensively on experts' clear and comprehensive explanations. However, a further obstacle emerges when genuinely proficient experts in specialized fields are hard to locate or unavailable due to scheduling issues. Additionally, when experts are presented by either side, the potential for bias is unavoidable. Divergent opinions between experts retained by the plaintiff and defendant often generate contradictions during the trial, compelling judges to assess conflicting testimonies under significant time pressures to reach a decision.

Heavy Workload and the Difficulty of Focusing on Patent Case, Commercial court judges do not exclusively handle patent disputes. Judges are tasked with a broad range of duties, including cases involving intellectual property such as trademarks, copyrights, and industrial designs, as well as civil or criminal matters at the initial judicial level. This diverse caseload presents a challenge for judges to concentrate deeply on any single case type, particularly patents, which require specialized technical expertise. This reality has serious ramifications for the quality of judicial rulings. Inadequate focus and examination may impede thorough consideration of a patent's technical elements, which is crucial for optimal adjudication. Patent adjudication necessitates precise evaluations of originality, verification of originality, and whether the invention meets the criteria of an inventive step. These assessments can only be properly conducted if judges are allotted ample time to analyze patent documents and correlate them with impartial expert testimony.

Limited Judicial Training, Commercial court judges often receive general training that fails to adequately address the intricate technical aspects of patents. While judges may obtain basic knowledge through certification programs or short courses, the focus typically emphasizes normative and procedural considerations rather than the substantive technological issues. Consequently, the mastery of scientific terminology and expertise required for patent cases cannot be readily acquired through brief training alone. Judges occasionally participate in Focus Group Discussions or supplementary workshops, but these activities are not systematic or ongoing. As a result, attempts to enhance judicial capabilities, particularly in adapting to rapid technological advancements, remain insufficient. Without a consistent training program, judges' technical expertise will always lag behind the intricacy of patent cases encountered in practice.

Time-Consuming Litigation Stages, the decision-writing process may be relatively expedited once all necessary evidence and testimonies have been gathered, but the preceding stages can be time-consuming. These preliminary steps involve summoning witnesses, selecting expert witnesses, and thoroughly verifying relevant documents a complex undertaking. In patent-related disputes, the documents in question may include patent specifications, patent claims, supporting scientific research, and evidence of similar technology used elsewhere. The court must meticulously verify all such documents to ensure their authenticity and relevance. Furthermore, if the interpretation of claims becomes a point of contention, the time dedicated to technical arguments during hearings can increase significantly. Additional complications may emerge, such as overlapping regulations or the filing of counterclaims, which further extend the litigation process. Furthermore, the limited availability of judges experienced in intellectual property disputes and the scarcity of neutral experts contribute to delays in resolution. Consequently, while patent cases only constitute 5 percent of all IP disputes, they often lead in terms of trial duration.

The Need for Neutral Experts, amid these challenges, a key proposition has arisen: the need for independent experts unaffiliated with any party. Currently, the reliance on party-appointed experts frequently results in biased testimony. Judges are confronted with two conflicting narratives, each potentially swayed by the interests of the party who retained the expert. The availability of court-recognized neutral experts would allow judges to obtain more impartial technical explanations without concerns about partiality. Analogous practices have been observed in other legal systems, such as the Japanese approach of utilizing court-appointed experts or investigators to aid judges in comprehending technical materials without favoring any particular party in intellectual property cases. Adopting a similar mechanism in Indonesia, particularly at the Central Jakarta Commercial Court which adjudicates the majority of nationwide patent disputes, would prove highly advantageous. Neutral experts could effectively bridge the divide between judges generalized legal knowledge and the specialized technical expertise required in such cases.

Institutional and Personnel Structure, Institutional-level reforms are necessary to better manage intellectual property cases. Attempts to create a dedicated IP division within the Central Jakarta Commercial Court continue to encounter hurdles, primarily due to a lack of personnel with specialized patent law expertise. At the appellate level, IP cases are still handled by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which has not established a specialized IP division. This indicates that institutional support for patent litigation remains inadequate. Equally significant are personnel issues within the judiciary. The number of judges truly well-versed in IP, particularly patents, remains limited. Legal training programs often lack in-depth scientific knowledge, despite the technical proficiency required for patent cases. The pressing need for judges with "interdisciplinary" expertise is challenging to address unless hiring and educational initiatives are specifically designed to fulfill this requirement.

Opportunities for Reform, Multiple stakeholders advocate that improving Indonesia's patent litigation system necessitates revising the procedural time constraints. Extending the adjudication period for patent cases would grant judges greater opportunity to meticulously analyze technical details. Consequently, judicial determinations would likely be more precise and less prone to errors. Additionally, prioritizing the establishment of a mechanism to appoint independent experts is crucial. A court-appointed, impartial expert can furnish a far more trustworthy "second assessment" than experts provided by the disputing parties. Ongoing professional development for judges is critical to complement these initiatives. Judges require comprehensive and frequent training on technical aspects across a range of technological domains to stay current with evolving advancements. Judicial expertise must extend beyond patents to encompass other intellectual property areas, such as industrial designs, trademarks, and copyrights, all of which involve technical components that continue to progress.

Patent Litigation Handling in Japan

The handling of patent litigation in Japan has unique characteristics comprehensively regulated by various legal provisions. According to the Japan Patent Office (JPO) report, the Japanese judicial system that deals with patent disputes implements several rules ensuring an effective and efficient process. The primary focus of patent litigation handling is the protection of intellectual property, with jurisdiction specifically designated to handle cases involving patent rights. This essay will discuss in more detail the special jurisdiction, the role of the court, and the settlement mechanisms applied. The Japanese legal system has established a specialized framework for handling patent disputes, recognizing the importance of providing a dedicated and efficient process for resolving these complex cases.[28] The system is designed to prioritize the protection of intellectual property rights, with well-defined jurisdictional rules and procedural mechanisms in place to facilitate the adjudication of patent-related conflicts.

A key aspect of the Japanese patent litigation system is the designation of specialized courts to handle these cases.Specifically, lawsuits related to patent rights, particularly those occurring in eastern Japan, including Tokyo, Nagoya, Sendai, and Sapporo, fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court. Conversely, for western Japan, including Osaka, the Osaka District Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over patent-related lawsuits. This division of jurisdiction ensures that each case is handled by a court with the appropriate expertise and focus, enhancing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the process.[13]

Furthermore, the Japanese legal system recognizes the need for specialized knowledge and expertise in adjudicating patent disputes. To this end, the Intellectual Property High Court, established in 2005 as part of the Tokyo High Court, plays a crucial role in ensuring prompt and accurate resolution of these cases. The court utilizes a panel of three or, in important cases, five judges to hear and decide on patent-related disputes. Additionally, the court employs court researchers who have specialized expertise in technical and legal aspects related to intellectual property, providing valuable insights and analysis to support the judges' decision-making. Japan's legal system has a clearly defined special jurisdiction for lawsuits related to intellectual property rights, including patents. According to the Civil Procedure Law, patent-related lawsuits occurring in eastern Japan, such as in Tokyo, Nagoya, Sendai, and Sapporo, fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court. Conversely, for western Japan, including Osaka, the Osaka District Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over patent-related lawsuits. This division of jurisdiction ensures that each case is handled by a court with the appropriate expertise and focus, enhancing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the process. On April 1, 2005, Japan established the Intellectual Property High Court as part of the Tokyo High Court. The court's primary function is to handle disputes related to intellectual property rights, including patents. The court is located in the shared court building in Kasumigaseki, Tokyo, which also houses the Tokyo High Court and Tokyo District Court. This specialized court plays a crucial role in ensuring that patent disputes are handled promptly and accurately.[29]

The Intellectual Property High Court in Japan holds hearings with a panel of three judges. However, in important cases requiring fast and comprehensive decisions, a full hearing with a panel of five judges may be held. Additionally, the court utilizes court researchers assigned to investigate technical issues related to patents. These researchers help provide objective and in-depth views on the technical aspects of the cases being adjudicated. Expert commissions are also involved in certain cases to provide opinions based on their specialized knowledge, assisting the court in reaching fair and well-informed decisions. This combination of specialized judges, court researchers, and expert input helps the Intellectual Property High Court handle complex patent disputes effectively and efficiently. The court's use of these specialized resources, such as the panel of judges, court researchers, and expert commissions, allows it to address the technical complexities and reach well-informed decisions in patent-related cases, contributing to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process.

The Role of Court Researchers in Patent Litigation at the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan

The Intellectual Property High Court of Japan (IPHC) plays a central role in resolving disputes related to intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. One of the key elements supporting the functioning of this court is the presence of court researchers, who contribute to strengthening the judicial process by providing in-depth analysis and relevant information to the judges. This essay will holistically discuss the definition, role, duties, benefits, and examples of the application of court researchers in patent disputes at the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan.

This was confirmed during an interview with a Patent Examiner at the Japan Patent Office, who previously held experience as a Researcher at the Japanese Court. Court researchers are court officers with specialized expertise in certain fields, assigned to conduct investigations, analysis, and prepare reports to assist judges in deciding complex cases. At the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan, court researchers typically have a strong technical or legal background, particularly in fields related to intellectual property.

Court researchers play several key roles in the court, including:

1. Technical and Legal Analysis: Court researchers are tasked with analyzing technical and legal issues that arise in the disputes under review. In the context of patent disputes, they must understand the technical details of the disputed patent and the legal implications of the claims made by the parties. This involves a deep dive into the technology, relevant patents, and legal precedents to provide a comprehensive assessment of the case.
2. Report Preparation: Based on their in-depth analysis, court researchers prepare comprehensive reports that evaluate the technical and legal aspects of the case. These detailed reports are then used by the judges as valuable material for consideration in the decision-making process.
3. Consultation with Judges: Court researchers often act as consultants to judges, providing explanations and clarifications on difficult-to-understand issues, especially in cases involving complex technology or other specialized fields. Their expertise helps the judges grasp the nuances of the case and make well-informed rulings.
4. Developing General Understanding: In addition to focusing on individual cases, court researchers also help develop a general understanding of technological trends or regulatory changes that may affect future decision-making. This broad knowledge benefits the court in anticipating and addressing emerging issues in patent disputes.

Benefits of Court Researchers at the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan

The use of court researchers at the Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) of Japan brings several significant benefits.These include: (a) Accuracy in Decision-Making: The reports prepared by court researchers enable judges to make more accurate decisions by providing them with a better understanding of the technical and legal aspects of the case. This is particularly important in complex patent disputes where the underlying technology may be highly specialized or novel. (b) Judicial Efficiency: Court researchers expedite the judicial process by comprehensively providing the necessary information, reducing the time judges need to grasp complex technical details. This allows the court to resolve patent disputes in a more timely and efficient manner, benefiting both the parties involved and the broader public. (c) Improved Quality of Judgments: The support of court researchers contributes to higher-quality judgments produced by the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan, as they are based on in-depth analysis and relevant information. This ensures that the court's rulings are well-informed, legally sound, and able to withstand scrutiny. Example: Application of Court Researchers in Patent Disputes

In a patent dispute involving advanced semiconductor technology, court researchers at the Intellectual Property High Court would perform the following tasks: (a) Technical Investigation: The court researcher examines the disputed patent in detail, including reviewing technical literature, related patents, and applicable industry standards. This comprehensive investigation provides the researcher with a deep understanding of the technology at the heart of the dispute. (b) Report Preparation: After the investigation, the researcher prepares a comprehensive report explaining the patented technology and evaluating the infringement claims filed by the plaintiff. This report serves as a valuable resource for the judges, enabling them to grasp the technical complexities of the case. (c) Consultation with Judges: The researcher then consults with the judge to explain their findings, provide the necessary context, and answer any questions that may arise during the trial. This direct interaction ensures that the judges have a clear understanding of the technical issues, which is crucial for making well-informed decisions. (d) This was confirmed during an interview with a judge who adjudicates patent claim disputes at the Business Court in Japan, where judges are consistently assisted by court-appointed expert examiners from the Japan Patent Office in reviewing, understanding, and deciding patent claim disputes. With the presence of court researchers, who possess a strong technical background, although there is no requirement for them to have legal knowledge, judges gain a deeper understanding of the technical issues involved, ensuring more accurate and fair decisions. Court researchers at the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan play a critical role in supporting the judicial process, especially in cases involving technology or other specialized issues. Through tasks such as technical analysis, report preparation, and consultations with judges.

Handling Patent Disputes Involving Advanced Technology in Japan with Expert Committee of Japan

The handling of patent disputes involving advanced technology in Japan has been enhanced by the introduction of the Court Researcher System and the Expert Committee System. This system, established through the revision of Japan's Civil Procedure Law in 2003 and implemented in April 2004, aims to improve the quality of examination and evaluation in cases involving technical and specialized issues, such as intellectual property disputes. The Expert Committee, composed of experts from various technological fields, provides impartial and neutral guidance to judges and the parties involved on technical matters in these disputes.

In intellectual property disputes, particularly patent cases, technical issues are often highly complex.[30] The role of the Expert Committee is to review the technology in question and provide explanations to judges based on the latest scientific knowledge. This is expected to expedite and improve the quality of court decisions, as well as enhance public confidence in the court's rulings.[31]

The Expert Committee comprises university professors and leading researchers in fields such as electricity, machinery, chemistry, information technology, and biotechnology, with approximately 200 members distributed throughout Japan. As of April 1, 2022, more than 2400 experts have been involved in the intellectual property litigation process. These experts are appointed as part-time public employees by the Supreme Court and are only involved in cases requiring specific expertise. Their term of service lasts for two years, and they participate in various litigation procedures, including issue setting, evidence examination, and mediation.

In addition to the Expert Committee, the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan also has court officers specifically responsible for handling technical cases related to patents. These court officers possess technical knowledge in fields such as machinery, chemistry, and electricity, and are tasked with conducting technical investigations at the court's request. They are also allowed to ask questions during trials to clarify technical issues at hand. In highly technical cases, court officers work alongside the Expert Committee, providing comprehensive information to the judges. Technical meetings are frequently held in court to explain technical issues in greater depth. During these meetings, experts can provide explanations to the judges and the parties involved, assisting the judges in understanding the technology being debated and leading to more accurate and prompt decisions. With this system in place, Japan, as a technologically advanced country, has been able to handle patent disputes more effectively. The collaboration between Court Researchers and the Expert Committee has provided significant support in resolving complex technological disputes, enabling judges to make more informed and reliable decisions.

CONCLUSION

Patent claim disputes involving advanced technology require specialized knowledge to comprehend. Judges presiding over patent cases in Indonesia's Commercial Courts often face challenges in securing expert witnesses who comprehend the disputed technology and maintain a neutral, unbiased stance toward all parties. Consequently, there is a strong suspicion that the plaintiff's expert will advocate for the defendant's interests, while the defendant's expert will side with their client, leaving the judges to decide patent claims without expert assistance. As a result, these judges frequently encounter difficulties in resolving the substance of the claim disputes. In contrast, Japanese judges handling patent cases are regularly assisted by court researchers in dealing with such disputes. Moreover, when cases involve highly advanced technology, the court may request assistance from an Expert Commission. These explanations help judges understand the technology being debated, leading to more accurate and prompt decisions, and allowing judges to focus on writing their rulings. With the support of court researchers or expert commission, the process of rendering judgments is more likely to achieve justice, as compared to situations in which decisions are made solely by judges who do not possess a technical background. Indonesian Commercial Court judges recognize the importance of experts, such as court researchers and the Expert Commission, as employed in the Japanese courts. This situation calls for a policy from the Supreme Court of Indonesia to provide expert resources in the courts. To ensure substantive justice in patent dispute rulings, amendments to the Patent Law should mandate the presence of a neutral, independent technical expert appointed by the panel of judges, rather than by the disputing parties, in order to prevent bias and guarantee the objectivity of technical assessments within the judicial process in Indonesia.