On March 17, 2026, the Economic Affairs Committee (CAE) of the Brazilian Senate has approved Bill #4,972/2019, presented by Senator Confúcio Moura (MDB‑RO). The Bill amends Statute #5,648/1970 (which establishes the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office – BRPTO) and Statute #9,279/1996 (the Brazilian Patent Statute – BPS) to shorten certain time limits that currently benefit the right owner during the administrative prosecution of patent applications. On the other hand, the Bill requires that the BRPTO reinvest, in the Office itself, the revenues arising from its services. The opinion issued by the CAE’s President, Senator Renan Calheiros (MDB‑AL), was favorable, and the text now moves to the Science and Technology Committee (CCT), with Senator Cid Gomes (PSB‑CE) appointed as rapporteur.

Among key amendments, the Bill reduces the secrecy period prior to publication from 18 to 12 months, brings forward the term to file the request for examination from 36 to 18 months (with the application being deemed withdrawn if not timely requested), and reduces to 30 days the time available for the applicant to respond to technical office actions.

If implemented, the attempts to shorten applicant‑side terms would cause direct harm to domestic applicants, negatively affecting the Brazilian patent system and discouraging the development of new technologies in the country. A quantitative study set out in a paper analyzing a similar initiative under Bill #2,210/2022 shows that most requests for examination for PCT applications (84.81%) and non‑PCT applications (76.13%) were filed between 25 and 36 months from the filing date.

This trend was confirmed by the system’s own users. In 2023, BRPTO launched a Call for Public Comments (TPS) #1/2023, in which 100% of patent applicants favored maintaining the 36‑month term that has been provided for in the BPS since 1971. This stance is justified by the fact that such term allows voluntary amendments to the application, ensuring that the invention can be adjusted to market circumstances and conditions.

In fact, as observed in Amendment #1 of Bill #4,972/2019, sponsored by Senator Sérgio Petecão (PSD/AC), the Bill would introduce a misalignment between the BPS and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In this respect, foreign applicants would obtain a competitive advantage over domestic applicants, generating legal uncertainty and the potential judicialization of the matter.

Absent an immediate, effective increase in personnel — namely, more examiners — the measure also tends to reallocate and concentrate pressure on the technical examination queues, thereby worsening the backlog in fields of higher technical complexity. By halving the statutory window to request examination (from 36 to 18 months), the Bill anticipates the mass inflow of applications into technology queues at a time when the government itself is pursuing gradual targets still under implementation — to reduce the average decision time to three years by 2025 and two years by 2026. Without an effective reinforcement in staff, budget, and process efficiency, the measure may bring the problem forward rather than solve it.

This risk becomes clearer when one considers that the backlog is not larger also because inflow pressure has been contained by variations in demand itself. In 2024, for instance, patent filings at BRPTO fell 0.8% compared to 2023 (27,704 applications),[1] which naturally reduces medium‑term demand for examination. When compared with the peak year of 2013 (34,069 applications), there is a drop of more than 18%.

From a 10‑year perspective, data on applications filed by Brazilian residents do not show robust growth,[2] reinforcing that part of the system’s recent “breathing room” has stemmed from a still fragile domestic base. In short, the stock did not grow further also because demand fluctuated/was contained through initiatives such as BRPTO’s Plan to Combat Patent Backlog, and not solely due to efficiency gains that could already support time‑limit cuts of this magnitude.

In turn, the uniform reduction of the time to respond to technical office actions to 30 days tends to increase involuntary abandonments and administrative disputes, especially in sectors of high technical complexity. Rather than reducing BRPTO’s workload, the likely effect is to shift effort toward reinstatement petitions, additional procedural acts, and potential litigation, which does not eliminate the backlog — only recomposes it in other phases.

One measure stands out as effectively positive for the system as a whole: the mandatory reinvestment of BRPTO’s revenues in the Office itself, coupled with the annual publication of a “Resource Allocation and Investment Report.” While genuine financial autonomy — with mandatory reinvestment of revenues and annual transparency on targets and investments — is a desirable advancement, comparative experience shows that the quality and predictability of examination result from the alignment between performance targets and installed capacity (human resources, systems, technical guidelines), not from simply compressing statutory deadlines applicable to the applicant.

In the opinion presented on the Senate floor, the rapporteur also proposed removing the provision regarding the patent term adjustment set out in Article 40, sole paragraph, of the BPS, on the understanding that the matter had already been addressed by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF), and rejected previously submitted amendments. Approval at the CAE was defended on the grounds of “addressing the accumulated delay and modernizing BRPTO’s management.”

In practical terms, if the text is approved by the CCT and later enacted, patent owners and applicants will need to immediately recalibrate their portfolio management routines, with an emphasis on requesting examination earlier, reorganizing timelines for responses to technical office actions, and intensifying the use of fast‑track routes, such as PPH and prioritized examination, where applicable.

The Bill’s processing now moves to the CCT, where substantive adjustments may occur.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact us at info@lickslegal.com. We will gladly assist you.