Petitioners and their legal counsel attending the Petition Revision Hearing of Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patent, Friday (9/1/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court resumed the material judicial review of Article 4 and the phrase “interested parties” in Article 70 paragraph (1) of Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patent (Patent Law) on Friday, January 9, 2026.

The case was filed by several civil society organizations and patient communities that are members of the Coalition for Patient Rights Advocacy for Access to Medicines. Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025 was heard by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, along with Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

The petitioners comprise the Indonesian Dialysis Patient Community Association (as Petitioner I), the Indonesian Drug Abuse Victims Association (PKNI) (as Petitioner II), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI) (as Petitioner III), the Indonesian Care Foundation (as Petitioner IV), the Indonesian Positive Women's Association (IPPI) (as Petitioner V), the Indonesian Association for Global Justice (as Petitioner VI), Patrick Johanes Laurens Nangka (as Petitioner VII), Irwandy Widjaja (as Petitioner VIII), Lusiana Aprilawati (as Petitioner IX), and Paran Sarimita Winarni (as Petitioner X).

During the hearing, Maria Wastu Pinandito, as legal counsel, stated that the petition had been amended in accordance with the input from the Panel of Justices. She explained that the Constitutional Court's authority had been updated in line with Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025. In addition, the description of the legal standing of the Petitioners has also been strengthened on pages 14 to 63 of the petition.

“In the section on the grounds for the petition, we have also included legal comparisons from other countries. This includes a comparison of the phrase ‘interested parties’ as explained on page 96,” said Maria.

In addition, the Petitioners have added revisions related to the grounds for the petition in accordance with the input from the Panel of Justices. One of these revisions is to supplement the legal comparisons from other countries regarding the provisions in question.

“And we have included the comparison on page 76, in the revised petition, where we compare it with the provisions in Argentina and India, Your Honor, regarding Article 4,” said Maria.

The Petitioners also requested the Court to declare that Article 4 of the Patent Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no legally binding force, conditionally as long as it is interpreted that inventions do not include:

1. Aesthetic creations.
2. Schemes.
3. Methods for performing activities:

1. Involving mental activities.
2. Games.
3. Business.

1. Computer programs, except for inventions implemented in the form of:

1. New uses for existing and/or known products and/or
2. New forms of existing compounds that do not result in a meaningful improvement in efficacy and have known chemical structural differences from the compounds. And, g. Theories and methods in the fields of science and mathematics.

"Declares that the phrase ‘interested parties’ in Article 70 paragraph (1) of Law No. 65 of 2024 on the Third Amendment to Law Number 13 of 2016 on Patents (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2024 No. 251 and Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7002) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as 'interested parties, including patent holders or licensees, foundations or institutions in the field of consumer affairs, councils or institutions in the field of religion, prosecutors or institutions representing national interests, aggrieved third parties, and any person and/or entity that is harmed, either directly or indirectly," said Maria.

Also read:

Coalition for Patient Rights Advocacy for Access to Medicines Challenges Patent Law

During the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, the Petitioners argued that the removal of Article 4 letter f of Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents through the Patent Law had eliminated legal protection for the public. The deleted provision previously excluded new uses of existing products and new forms of old compounds that did not provide a meaningful improvement in the properties of patentable objects.

According to the Petitioners, this change contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees fair legal certainty, and Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees the right to health. They further argued that Article 4, letter f, of the Patent Law protects the public and provides legal certainty by preventing low-quality patent applications that are intended solely to secure monopolies for a handful of large corporations. Low-quality patent applications certainly have the potential to violate the constitutional rights of the public, including the Petitioners, to guaranteed protection and legal certainty regarding the requirements for inventions that can be patented, particularly in the field of pharmaceuticals/medicines. (*)

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---