À medida que o prazo de proteção patentária se aproxima do fim, surge uma zona de tensão jurídica e econômica: de um lado, o titular ainda detém o direito de impedir o uso não autorizado; de outro, agentes de mercado começam atos preparatórios para a livre exploração da tecnologia após o término da vigência da exclusividade.

The extraterritorial reach of British courts in patent litigation breaches Brazilian sovereignty and the independence of patents as envisaged by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). Anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) and interim licences reaching patents granted under Brazilian law, valid only within national borders, violate comity and exceed the limits of sovereignty.

On March 8 2024, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BRPTO) published Ordinance No. 10/2024, which outlines the guidelines for processing appeals and other procedures. One key change in the appeal process is that if the Board of Appeals determines that the first instance failed to conduct a complete or thorough technical analysis, the case must be remanded to the first instance for further examination – referred to herein as re-examination.

As China deepens its global innovation footprint, Brazil has emerged as one of the most strategic destinations for its enterprises. Combining economic scale, political alignment, and a maturing intellectual property (IP) system, the country offers a unique environment for Chinese companies to expand and protect their technologies.

Brazil, currently ranked as the world’s 10th largest economy with an estimated nominal GDP of US$2.2 trillion in 2024, represents approximately 2% of global GDP.

Beyond these figures, Brazil stands out as one of the world’s most attractive and dynamic markets across several key economic sectors, making it an increasingly vital jurisdiction for IP protection.

Standards (padrões) tecnológicos como 5G e Wi-Fi são pilares da economia digital — ao promoverem a cooperação entre agentes desenvolvedores de tecnologia, contribuem para o avanço tecnológico e democratização do acesso à tecnologia.

Muito se tem debatido sobre a possibilidade de o governo brasileiro impor sanções na área da propriedade intelectual (PI) como forma de retaliação às medidas unilaterais de caráter tarifário aplicadas ao Brasil pela administração Trump.

The Life Sciences sector is a dynamic and ever-evolving field, continuously shaped by advancements in technology and shifts in regulatory frameworks. In 2024, several pivotal events have set the stage for significant developments, influencing public policies and driving innovation. These milestones will undoubtedly impact the future direction of the Life Sciences landscape, heralding exciting prospects for the sector.

Brazil has emerged as a significant player in global IP disputes in 2025, particularly in matters involving SEPs. The country is often chosen by rights holders when it comes to protection and enforcement due to its robust legal framework.

The 1ª Specialized Panel of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (TRF-2) in Brazil issued a relevant precedent regarding the interpretation of Article 32 of the Brazilian Patent Statute (BPS – Law # 9.279/96), especially for the life sciences and pharmaceutical research and development industries. For the first time in an invalidity lawsuit, the court confirmed the legality of making restrictive amendments to a patent application claim chart, whether voluntarily or in response to a BPTO (Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office) order, even after a request for examination has been submitted to the BPTO – provided these amendments are included in the patent application as filed. The court has also confirmed that BPTO Ordinance # 93/2003, which regulates this matter, is legal and does not violate any prior legal precedent (namely, Case # 0513584-06.2003.4.02.5101). This precedent is still subject to appeals to the superior courts, but it is relevant, since generic industry often mentions the judgment of Case # 0513584-06.2003.4.02.5101 to argue against the possibility of restrictive amendments after the request for examination. This decision provides greater legal certainty, aligns with what the BPTO has already established on the matter, confirms the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, and sets the standard for how such cases will be analysed going forward.