<![CDATA[Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) fundamentally constitute private rights arising from civil legal relations and primarily aim to protect the economic interests of right holders. Nevertheless, Indonesian legislation incorporates criminal sanctions as an enforcement mechanism, as reflected in Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright, Law Number 13 of 2016 on Patents, and Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The deployment of criminal law within the domain of private rights raises significant theoretical and policy concerns, particularly regarding the principle of ultimum remedium, which requires criminal sanctions to function as a last resort. This research critically examines whether criminalization within the Indonesian IPR regime genuinely reflects the ultimum remedium principle or instead indicates a tendency toward overcriminalization. Employing normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, the study finds that although most IPR offenses are complaint-based, the severity of criminal penalties and the broad scope of criminal provisions risk transforming criminal law from a protective instrument into a disproportionate coercive mechanism. Such development potentially distorts the balance between exclusive rights protection and public interest, while blurring the boundary between private and public law enforcement. This study argues for a recalibration of criminal law policy in the IPR regime, limiting criminal sanctions strictly to large-scale, commercial, and systemic infringements, thereby preserving the principles of ultimum remedium, legal certainty, and substantive justice. Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights, criminalization, ultimum remedium, overcriminalization, criminal law policy]]>
