Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has restored Article 4(f) of the Patent Law, reinstating restrictions on the patentability of second medical uses. The decision took effect when it was pronounced on 28 August 2026 and has immediate implications for applicants seeking protection by claiming for new uses of known products in Indonesia.
Importantly, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property has indicated that applications filed during the period in which Article 4(f) was removed will continue to be treated under the law then in force. Applicants should therefore review the date of filings and claims of relevant Indonesian applications to understand how the decision may affect them.
What has changed?
Article 4(f) was originally included in Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents. It excluded the following from patentability:
- a new use of an existing or known product; and
- a new form of an existing compound that does not produce a meaningful increase in efficacy and has a related chemical structure that is already known.
The provision was removed by Law No. 65 of 2024, the Third Amendment to the Patent Law, which took effect on 28 October 2024. Its removal opened a pathway for second medical use inventions to be considered patentable subject matter in Indonesia.
On 28 August 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled that the removal of Article 4(f) was contrary to Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution and ordered the provision, together with its elucidation, to be restored. The decision is final and took effect immediately when pronounced.
As a result, new uses of known products and new forms of known compounds that fall within Article 4(f) are once again excluded from being considered patentable subject matter in Indonesia.
Why Article 4(f) was previously removed
The removal of Article 4(f) in 2024 formed part of an effort to make Indonesia’s pharmaceutical patent framework more responsive to developments in science and health research.
The change recognised that research into known products, including the identification of new medical uses, can produce valuable therapeutic developments. This was particularly evident following the COVID-19 pandemic, when the repurposing of known drugs contributed to the development of potential new treatments.
By opening a pathway to patent protection for second medical uses, the 2024 amendment was intended to encourage further research and strengthen Indonesia’s national health and innovation systems.
Why did the Court restore the restriction?
The Constitutional Court took a different view of the balance between patent protection, legal certainty and the public interest.
The Court concluded that Article 4(f) should be restored to provide greater legal certainty and support the public interest objectives underpinning Indonesia’s patent framework.
The Court therefore reinstated both Article 4(f) and its accompanying elucidation. This restores the position under the 2016 Patent Law and again limits the protection available for second medical uses and certain new forms of known compounds.
What does the decision mean for patent applicants?
DGIP has stated that applications filed between 28 October 2024 and the Constitutional Court’s decision on 28 August 2026 will continue to be treated under Law No. 65 of 2024, which applied when those applications were filed. Under that legislative position, second medical use inventions could be accepted as patentable.
This is an immediate and important benefit for applicants with relevant applications filed during this period. Those applications will not automatically be assessed under the restored Article 4(f) restriction, according to DGIP’s stated approach.
For applications filed after the Constitutional Court’s decision took effect, Article 4(f) applies again. Claims directed to a new use of an existing or known product are therefore excluded from patentability, as are claims to a new form of a known compound where the requirements concerning increased efficacy and chemical structure are not met.
Applicants with Indonesian pharmaceutical patent applications should now review:
- when each relevant application was filed;
- whether its claims concern a new use of an existing or known product;
- whether it claims a new form of a known compound; and
- where relevant, whether the claimed form produces a meaningful increase in efficacy and involves the required difference in chemical structure.
This review will help applicants identify which legislative position applies and determine whether pending or proposed claims require further consideration following the Court’s decision.
A clearer position for existing and future applications
The restoration of Article 4(f) narrows the protection available for new uses of known products in Indonesia. However, DGIP’s position provides an important distinction between applications filed while Article 4(f) was removed and those filed after it was restored.
For applicants with filings made between 28 October 2024 and 28 August 2026 (at 4:30 PM on 28 August 2026 – the time stamp on filing receipt is important), the immediate priority is to confirm the filing date and review the claims against the law that applied during that period. For future applications, patent strategies will need to take account of the restored exclusion from the outset.
Applicants developing or protecting pharmaceutical innovations in Indonesia should seek advice on how the restored provision may affect their pending applications and future filing strategies.
How we can help
Changes to patentability requirements can have immediate implications for both pending applications and future filing plans.
Our patent team can help you review affected applications, assess claim scope in light of the restored Article 4(f) exclusion, and develop practical filing strategies for pharmaceutical and life sciences innovations in Indonesia and across Asia-Pacific.
Whether you are managing an existing portfolio or planning new filings, we can help you navigate the change and identify the most effective path forward. Reach out to our team for a confidential conversation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
