C Changes in the legal protection of intellectual property rights, particularly patents, reflect the evolving nature of regulatory frameworks in responding to the complexities of industrial and technological disputes. one of the prominent issues is the authority of the patent appeal commission to revoke granted patents, which in practice raises concerns regarding legal certainty and the limits of administrative jurisdiction. this study examines the patent revocation dispute between godrej consumer products limited and pt johnson and son indonesia, focusing on the patent appeal commission\\\'s decision to revoke the patent on the grounds of non-fulfillment of novelty and inventive step requirements. the legal issues analyzed in this research include the scope of authority of the patent appeal commission as regulated under law number 65 of 2024 in conjunction with law number 13 of 2016 and ministerial regulation of law and human rights number 3 of 2019, as well as whether the grounds for patent revocation conform to applicable legal provisions. this research employs a normative legal research method using statutory and case study approaches, supported by secondary data from literature studies and primary data obtained through interviews. the analysis is conducted descriptively, with conclusions drawn using deductive reasoning. the findings reveal that the authority of the patent appeal commission includes the power to rectify patent grant decisions, including re-evaluating the requirements of novelty and inventive step. in the godrej case, the patent was revoked due to failure to meet substantive requirements, although ambiguity remains in the regulation under article 130 letter c of the patent law, indicating the need for regulatory reform to ensure legal certainty and justice.