TEMPO.CO, Jakarta – Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has reinstated a provision restricting certain pharmaceutical patent claims, a ruling patient advocacy groups say could help prevent drug companies from extending monopolies over existing medicines and keep generic alternatives within reach.
The ruling has prompted the Coalition for Patient Rights Advocacy for Access to Medicines to call on the government and House of Representatives (DPR) to fully implement the court’s decision in Indonesia’s patent law and related regulations.
Here is what to know about the ruling and its potential implications for access to medicines.
What Did the Constitutional Court Rule?
The Constitutional Court partially granted a petition challenging Law No. 65 of 2024, the third amendment to Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents.
The petition, registered as Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, was filed by civil society organizations and individuals affiliated with the Coalition for Patient Rights Advocacy for Access to Medicines in December 2025.
At issue was the removal of Article 4(f) from the patent law. The provision excludes certain discoveries and pharmaceutical modifications from being eligible for patent protection.
In its ruling on August 28, 2026, the court declared the word “deleted” in Article 4(f), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024, unconstitutional.
The decision effectively restores the provision.
What Is Patent Evergreening?
Patent evergreening refers to practices that can extend or preserve patent protection for an existing medicine through new claims involving modifications or additional uses, rather than a genuinely significant innovation.
Patient advocacy groups have argued that such practices can delay competition from generic medicines. Because generic drugs are often less expensive than patented medicines, delays in their market entry can affect patients’ access to affordable treatment.
The coalition said the removal of Article 4(f) had created room for such practices in Indonesia’s pharmaceutical sector.
What Does the Restored Provision Cover?
According to the coalition, the provision again excludes from patent eligibility certain new uses of an existing product and new forms of an existing compound when they do not result in a meaningful improvement in therapeutic efficacy.
The court also addressed what is known as a “second medical use,” or the use of an existing medicine for a new medical indication.
Constitutional Court Justice M. Guntur Hamzah said during the ruling that restricting second medical-use patents could provide greater legal certainty for Indonesia’s generic pharmaceutical industry.
The court said the provision could strengthen public health protections by limiting patent claims that could otherwise extend exclusive rights without a meaningful therapeutic benefit.
Why Are Patient Groups Welcoming the Ruling?
Patient advocacy groups say patent policy has direct consequences for people who depend on medicines, particularly when treatment is expensive or needs to be taken over a long period.
Tony Richard Samosir, chairman of the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community (KPCDI), said patents should protect genuine innovation rather than keep medicines expensive through extended exclusivity.
“Patents are meant to protect innovation, not lock medicines into high prices,” Tony told Tempo in a joint statement from the coalition on Tuesday, September 1.
Arni Rismayanti, chairwoman of the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), said the ruling could help create a balance between pharmaceutical innovation and patients’ ability to obtain affordable treatment.
“For pulmonary hypertension patients, this is not an abstract issue. Access to medicines and their prices can affect patients’ financial burden and quality of life,” Arni said.
Lusiana Aprilawati, a tuberculosis survivor and one of the petitioners, said broader access to health technologies could become possible once patent protections expire and generic manufacturers are able to enter the market.
She said the issue extends beyond medicines to areas such as vaccines, preventive treatments and diagnostic tools.
Does the Ruling Reject Pharmaceutical Patents?
No. The coalition stressed that the ruling does not oppose patents or pharmaceutical innovation.
Patent protection is intended to provide incentives and recognition for genuinely new inventions that offer meaningful benefits. The concern, according to the coalition, is when exclusive rights are maintained through minor modifications to existing medicines without a significant improvement in therapeutic efficacy.
Indonesia AIDS Coalition (IAC) board chairman Aditya Wardhana described patents as a form of social contract in which the state grants temporary exclusive rights in exchange for an invention being disclosed to the public.
“When patents are used to maintain a monopoly without meaningful innovation, what is at stake is patients’ access to life-saving treatment,” he said.
What Happens Next?
The coalition is urging the government and DPR to ensure that the Constitutional Court’s decision is fully reflected in amendments and the implementation of Indonesia’s patent law, including related regulations.
Tony said implementation should go beyond simply restoring the wording of the law. He called for stronger patent examination standards to prevent patents from being granted for claims that do not meet the threshold for meaningful innovation.
The issue is particularly significant in the pharmaceutical sector, where patent protection can directly affect the availability and affordability of medicines.
The court said the restrictions on second medical uses and new forms of existing compounds that do not provide meaningful therapeutic improvements are necessary to prevent patent evergreening, which could prolong monopolies and delay the entry of generic medicines.
