What if a language error caused your patent to be legally invalid?
If you've read my article on how using “dimana” may weaken patent protection, you might wonder whether linguistic aspects of patent translation are often overlooked or challenging for patent professionals. This is understandable, as the excessive misuse of "dimana" and/or "di mana" may stem from rigid, word-for-word translations that fail to account for linguistic accuracy, disregarding linguistic aspects.

For the context, the word "dimana" has no legal basis and is linguistically meaningless. Meanwhile, "di mana" has defined meanings, but it is often misused, causing ambiguity. All of these reflect a disregard for linguistic aspects of patent translation.

These circumstances are dangerous, as they can create flaws in the boundaries of protection (the claims of patent), making patents vulnerable to infringement. To understand the dangers better, here are examples showing risks from ignoring linguistic aspects in patent translation.

Flaws due to an inability to understand affix, such as suffix "-kan"
For the first example, consider this sentence: "Alat suntik untuk menyuntikkan komposisi obat." The verb "menyuntik" is derived from the root word "suntik" with the prefix "meng-", whereas "menyuntikkan" combines "meng-" with the suffix "-kan". The distinction between the two verbs lies in the subject and object:
"Menyuntik" is used when the following word is injected WITH something.

"Menyuntikkan" is used when the following word is injected INTO something.

Thus, "alat suntik untuk menyuntikkan komposisi obat" means that the drug composition itself is being injected into something else. However, changing it to "alat suntik untuk menyuntik komposisi obat" alters the meaning, indicating that something is being injected with the drug composition.

An example of a similar issue is the incorrect use of "melapis" and "melapiskan". In a patent from the DJKI website, the sentence “metode untuk melapis suatu lapisan pelapis lama pada suatu substrat” shows this mistake. Can you spot it?

(see https://kbbi.kemdikbud.go.id/entri/menyuntik and https://kbbi.kemdikbud.go.id/entri/menyuntikkan)

Flaws caused by misplaced commas in conjunctions
Another common misconception in Indonesia that may affect patent protection is the improper use of conjunctions. An example of this is the misuse of "sehingga".

Indonesian language rules state that "sehingga" should not be preceded by a comma. The correct usage is:
X, Y, sehingga Z → X is the cause, and Z is the effect.
X, Y sehingga Z → Y is the cause, and Z is the effect.

Considering this, the sentence (from a granted patent on DJKI’s website):
"Ion lawan multivalen dengan liposom membentuk endapan yang sulit larut, lapisan ganda fosfolipid dari liposom mengandung fosfolipid dengan suhu transisi fase (Tm) lebih tinggi dari suhu tubuh, sehingga suhu transisi fase dari liposom lebih tinggi dari suhu tubuh."

may be interpreted as "Ion lawan multivalen dengan liposom membentuk endapan yang sulit larut" being the cause of "suhu transisi fase dari liposom lebih tinggi dari suhu tubuh," rather than specifically "lapisan ganda fosfolipid dari liposom mengandung fosfolipid dengan suhu transisi fase (Tm) lebih tinggi dari suhu tubuh."

Notice how the meaning shifts significantly from the intended interpretation.

(see: https://balaibahasajateng.kemdikbud.go.id/2014/02/penulisan-kata-penghubung/)

Flaws Caused by Incorrect Passive Sentence Structures
Last example, in Indonesian, passive and active sentence structures follow these patterns:
Active: Subject + Active Verb + Object
Passive: Object + Passive Verb + Subject

However, many Indonesians overuse passive structures incorrectly, placing the passive verb before the object, which causes ambiguity. This issue can be found in various media across Indonesia.

Unfortunately, this issue also arises in patent translations. To understand the significance, consider the following example:

"Provided is a machine with a robot arm…"
is often mistranslated as:
"Disediakan mesin dengan lengan robot,"
instead of the correct version:
"Mesin dengan lengan robot disediakan."

The incorrect translation implies that the machine with a robot arm is providing something, rather than the intended meaning that this machine is being provided by the invention.

This structural error can cause serious misinterpretations in patent claims, changing the legal protection scope.

(see: https://www.ruangguru.com/blog/kalimat-aktif-dan-pasif))

There are many other risky flaws due to linguistic incompetence, beside those discussed here, such as other grammatical errors, suffix-related issues, and more.

Why Do Many Patent Professionals Struggle with Linguistic Aspects?
Clearly, linguistic aspects are crucial for patent translation, but why do many professionals struggle with them? To explain this, allow me to share my experience, Let’s start with the background of patent translators.

Many patent translators come from technical fields such as engineering, chemistry, and biology, but often lack linguistic competence. Training in this area has been highly exclusive, with only few individuals receiving it and even fewer studying language independently.

Further, there is a common belief that native speakers naturally master their language, but this is not always the case. Many Indonesians struggle with correct language use, evident in various media, where mistakes such as “mengkonsumsi” instead of “mengonsumsi” and the excessive use of incorrect passive structures are common.

No wonder if many believe there is no need to be or hire a patent translator who possesses both technical expertise and strong Indonesian language skills. This has long been the practice in Indonesia. Indonesian translation of patents are often overly literal, resulting in ambiguous, unnatural sentences and misinterpretations. While precision is vital, excessive literalism weakens a patent's enforceability and creates legal loopholes.

Conclusion: The Urgent Need for Linguistic Precision in Patent Translation
Therefore, linguistic aspects remain a significant challenge for many patent professionals. To thoroughly address this issue, it is crucial to raise awareness about the importance of linguistic aspects in patent translation. The boundaries of patent protection are defined by the wording in the claims, so if the words are not properly structured or lack clear definitions, how can they provide clear and precise patent protection?

As a professional in patent translation, I must learn and master linguistic principles to ensure that patents are effectively protected in practice, beyond merely obtaining certification.

Patent professionals must value linguistic aspects of patent translation. Raising awareness on this will promote more training in language precision, leading to stronger patent protection.

Linguistic aspects in patent translation are as crucial as technical skills. However, the question is: Will Indonesia’s patent system evolve to prevent these risks or continue to allow them?

For more information on Indonesian language rules, I have put it together with the article about “dimana” mentioned above, link below.

https://www.proz.com/forum/linguistics/368150-alert_a_potential_risk_in_indonesian_patent_protection.html