Author: pedrobar

The streaming industry is more popular than ever, and nowadays, it is difficult not to subscribe to at least one streaming service among the numerous options available in the market. Various platforms offer different subscription plans, each with a diverse portfolio of movies and series tailored to individual preferences.

 

From major international players such as Netflix and Disney Plus to regional services like Globoplay—the most well-known broadcaster in Brazil—streaming has gained widespread popularity among Brazilian audiences. It is increasingly common for families to subscribe to multiple platforms to diverse entertainment needs.

 

The Brazilian government and Congress are currently working on regulations for streaming services to strengthen national audiovisual productions and ensure the inclusion of local content on digital platforms. Additionally, there is an interest in requiring international streaming services to contribute to the National Treasury through the Contribution for the Development of the National Cinematographic Industry (CONDECINE).

 

Another initiative under discussion is the mandatory inclusion of a minimum quota of national productions on streaming platforms. This policy aims to foster the growth of Brazil’s audiovisual industry by promoting cultural diversity and ensuring that users have access to a broad range of content reflecting different realities and perspectives.

 

 

Some streaming platforms, such as Netflix, have already invested in local productions to expand their presence in Brazil. These investments include the launch of series, documentaries, films, and reality shows featuring Brazilian celebrities like Vinícius Jr. and Anitta. Promoting local content not only enhances a platform’s appeal to Brazilian audiences but also intensifies competition among streaming services.

 

The increased production of local content benefits the audiovisual sector, small production companies, and intellectual property development in Brazil, including trademarks, slogans, and copyrights. However, regulating streaming services and local content production presents challenges. Poorly designed regulations could hinder market growth, increase operational costs, and discourage investment in Brazil. It is not uncommon for companies to withdraw from local markets due to high taxation and regulatory burdens.

 

To be effective, regulation must strike a balance between fostering industry growth and ensuring compliance without overburdening streaming companies. A well-structured framework should promote job creation, tax contributions, and the strengthening of the national audiovisual industry while maintaining an environment conducive to business development.

 

This is a complex challenge, but the streaming industry has proven to be a significant player in the entertainment sector, driving substantial economic activity both in Brazil and globally. It is crucial to closely monitor key legislative projects and discussions within Congress and the government to understand the future of streaming regulations in the country.

 

—

 

Author: Daniel Eustáquio Ramos Marinho and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: 

Governo quer streaming público e regulação de plataformas em 2025 – 

https://www.infomoney.com.br/politica/governo-quer-streaming-publico-e-regulacao-de-plataformas-em-2025/

 

—

 

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho or Daniel Eustáquio Ramos Marinho.

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho ou Daniel Eustáquio Ramos Marinho.

Instituted in Brazil in 2019, the “Inova Simples” program establishes a special and simplified regime for business initiatives with a disruptive or incremental nature, in order to encourage, through a differentiated treatment, the creation, formalization, development and consolidation of innovation companies as inducers of technological advances and contributors to the local economy.

 

Due to its broad nature, the program allows innovation companies of various kinds to benefit from the framework, including some startups.

 

Among the numerous advantages, there are facilitations such as: less bureaucratization in the processes of opening and closing companies, the possibility of commercializing products and services on an experimental basis (as long as the annual turnover limit of R$ 81,000.00 is observed) and even exemption from tax registration with the Brazilian Treasury Department.

 

In addition to these initiatives, the “Inova Simples” program also provides relevant tools in the field of industrial property, as it allows participating companies to have their trademark and patent applications examined by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office – BPTO on a priority basis, resulting in a significant reduction in the expected time to obtain these registrations.

 

 

To exemplify the improvement: a trademark application, whose decision is expected to be published 12 to 18 months after filing, can have its examination time reduced by up to a third, depending on the case. 

 

In order to do so, the company must only register itself in BPTO´s Electronic Portal as a “Simple Innovation Company”, with a attached copy of the certificate issued by the “Redesim” Portal with the name of the company registered in Inova Simples at the moment of the filing.

 

Despite this simplification, it is important to emphasize: the assistance of a professional specialized in industrial property is essential to guarantee all the reliability needed to protect your assets.

 

—

 

Autores/Authors: Gabriel Ditticio, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Fontes/Sources:  

BRASIL. [Lei Complementar n. 167/2019 (2019)]. Lei Complementar nº 167, de 24 de abril de 2019. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, [2019]. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lcp/lcp167.htm. Acesso em: 19 jan. 2025.

Inova Simples facilita a formalização de empresas de inovação. SEBRAE, Rio de Janeiro, 23 fev. 2022. Disponível em: https://sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/ufs/ac/artigos/inova-simples-facilita-a-formalizacao-de-empresas-de-inovacao,7d1e07d28b62f710VgnVCM100000d701210aRCRD. Acesso em: 19 jan. 2025.

MACIEL, Cibele. Startups têm prioridade na análise de pedido de registro de marcas e patentes. ASN Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 08 jan. 2025. Disponível em: https://agenciasebrae.com.br/economia-e-politica/startups-tem-prioridade-na-analise-de-pedido-de-registro-de-marcas-e-patentes/#:~:text=Ag%C3%AAncia%20Sebrae%20de%20Not%C3%ADcias,-Voc%C3%AA%20est%C3%A1%20na&text=As%20startups%20e%20empresas%20inovadoras,da%20Propriedade%20Industrial%20(INPI). Acesso em: 19 jan. 2025.

 

—

 

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

Brazil’s Federal Senate approved a draft law that aims to establish guidelines for the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI) in Brazil.

 

On December 10th, 2024, the Federal Senate approved a draft law that aims to establish guidelines for the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI) in Brazil. The project, the result of more than a year and a half of discussions, now goes to the Chamber of Deputies for evaluation.

 

It’s well known that artificial intelligence is a technology that allows machines and computer programs to reproduce cognitive functions similar to those of a human being, covering several areas of knowledge.

 

Therefore, in view of the fast advances in this technology, there are major risks associated with its use, making it necessary to create a legal regulatory system to control these systems.  

 

 

The legislative project creates risk categories for AI systems and defines specific rules for their use. Technologies considered high risk, such as autonomous vehicles, biometric identification and selection processes, will have greater supervision and security requirements. Systems with the potential to violate rights, such as autonomous weapons or tools that rank individuals for access to goods and services, will be banned.

 

The project also excludes specific activities from the regulatory scope, such as national defense systems and non-commercial private use applications, allowing for greater flexibility in restricted contexts.

 

The debate is expected to continue in the Chamber, subject to further debate and modifications. This regulation represents a significant step towards balancing technological innovation, security and rights in Brazil, as well as an important step for Brazil to advance on the international stage.

 

—

 

Author: Isabela Nicolella Vendramelli and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Source: 

https://www12.senado.leg.br/radio/1/noticia/2024/12/10/senado-envia-a-camara-proposta-que-regulamenta-uso-da-ia-no-brasil 

https://fastcompanybrasil.com/ia/senado-aprova-marco-regulatorio-da-inteligencia-artificial-entenda/

https://exame.com/tecnologia/senado-aprova-projeto-de-regulamentacao-de-inteligencia-artificial-no-brasil/

 

—

 

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

The recent legal dispute between digital influencers Sydney Nicole Gifford and Alyssa Sheil, centered on the appropriation of a digital aesthetic known as “sad beige,” brings to light important issues regarding the protection of aesthetic elements and visual identities in the digital environment. This unprecedented case, which addresses the possibility of legally protecting a widely disseminated trend on social media, challenges the limits of traditional intellectual property and unfair competition laws.

 

The legal dispute began when Sydney alleged that Alyssa improperly copied her visual identity, claiming that she violated copyright, engaged in misappropriation, and interfered with commercial relationships. This raises the question: how should such a situation be analyzed under Brazilian law?

 

The sad beige aesthetic, characterized by neutral, earthy tones and minimalist elements, has transcended specific niches and become a global trend, driven by the dynamics of viralization and repetition, typical of digital platforms. In this scenario, both influencers use this aesthetic as a pillar of their brand identities and as an essential tool to promote products through commercial partnerships, especially with Amazon.

 

In Brazil, as in many jurisdictions around the world, there is no specific legal provision to protect widely shared aesthetics or visual styles. The Industrial Property Law (LPI), the main legal framework regulating trademarks, patents, and industrial designs, requires the object to be protected to exhibit distinctiveness and originality, making it difficult to fit the sad beige aesthetic into this context.

 

As a collective and generic trend, this aesthetic lacks the level of individuality necessary to be registered as a trademark or protected as trade dress, except in cases where it forms part of an unmistakable image set associated with a product or service.

 

In the realm of copyright, governed by Law No. 9,610/98, similar challenges arise. The legislation protects works endowed with originality but does not cover ideas, styles, or abstract concepts. Thus, even if Sydney claims to be a pioneer in using the sad beige aesthetic, this would not suffice to ensure copyright protection, especially given that the style is widely replicated and reinterpreted by various creators.

 

An alternative approach would be to frame the case within the context of unfair competition, as provided for in Article 195 of the LPI. However, to establish unfair competition, it is necessary to prove that Alyssa used similar elements in a way that generates consumer confusion or that she unduly benefited from Sydney’s reputation.

 

 

In situations like this, where the aesthetic style is generic and widely disseminated, it becomes extremely difficult to prove direct economic harm or diversion of clientele. Furthermore, the widespread circulation of the sad beige trend on social media diminishes any claims of exclusivity by a single creator.

 

Another relevant aspect is the impact of social media algorithms on how aesthetics like sad beige are disseminated. The concept of templatization, which describes how influencers replicate successful formats and styles to maximize engagement, illustrates how the dynamics of digital platforms encourage repetition. This practice not only dilutes the idea of exclusivity but also complicates the identification of authorship or ownership over a visual style.

 

Influencers frequently adapt and reinterpret popular aesthetic elements, reinforcing the notion that trends like sad beige belong to a collective imagination. This logic, driven by the attention economy and algorithmic demands, makes it difficult to establish clear boundaries between legitimate inspiration and improper imitation. The digital environment, therefore, challenges traditional intellectual property concepts, which were developed in a context that predates the fluidity of social media dynamics.

 

The conflict between Sydney and Alyssa highlights a growing dilemma in the field of intellectual property in the digital economy: how to protect creations or styles that are simultaneously innovative and widely shared? In Brazil, the case serves as a warning about the limitations of traditional intellectual property and unfair competition laws in addressing the dynamics of digital platforms, which favor the viralization of trends.

 

Although legal tools such as trademark protection, copyright, and unfair competition rules exist, they prove insufficient to address the specificities of the digital universe.

 

Cases like this underscore the need for reviewing and updating existing norms and fostering dialogue among jurists, content creators, and digital platforms. The goal should be to find solutions that balance the protection of creators’ rights with the inherent dynamism of the contemporary creative economy, allowing originality and collective inspiration to coexist in the digital environment.

 

—

 

Author: Carlos Roberto Parra e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: https://g1.globo.com/pop-arte/noticia/2025/01/05/influenciadoras-digitais-travam-batalha-judicial-para-decidir-quem-e-a-dona-de-estetica-bege-basica-na-internet.ghtml

 

—

 

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

In a legal dispute between two coffee shops using similar names – QUANTO CAFÉ and QUANTI CAFEH – a judge of the 25th Civil Court of Brasilia ruled that the earlier registration of “QUANTO CAFÉ” before the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) takes precedence. Consequently, the second establishment was ordered to cease using “QUANTI CAFEH” trademark, under penalty of a daily fine.

 

In the present case, it was stablished that the “QUANTO CAFÉ” trademark had been previously applied for and granted by the BPTO, whereas the application for “QUANTI CAFEH” had been rejected on the grounds of similarity to the former, however, its owner continued to make improper use of the trademark.

 

The Brazilian Industrial Property Law sets forth, in Article 124, a comprehensive list of prohibitions regarding what cannot be registered as a trademark. Specifically, item XIX stipulates that imitation or reproduction of already registered trademarks must not be registered, as shown below:

 

 

Art. 124. The following are not registrable as trademarks

XIX – reproduction or imitation, in whole or in part, even with addition, of a previously registered trademark, intended to distinguish or certify identical, similar or related products or services, likely to cause confusion or association with the existing trademark;

 

The court’s decision adhered to the applicable legislation, safeguarding the rights of the owner of a trademark duly registered before the competent authority. This ruling also served to prevent the dilution of the trademark and curb acts of unfair competition.

 

Decisions like this are important to demonstrate to third parties that the improper use of registered trademarks is repudiated, whether in the letter of the law or in judicial and administrative decisions. Trademark owner are entitled to have their rights guaranteed and respected, acting against infringers to uphold the integrity of their brands when necessary.

 

—

 

Autores: Daniela Russo, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Fontes: https://www.conjur.com.br/2024-dez-21/em-disputa-por-marca-registro-oficial-garante-direito-sobre-o-nome/ 

 

—

 

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

On 10 September, the 3rd Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled in Special Appeal 2.121.497/RJ, increasing the damages awarded to the Azzas 2154 group – also known as Tiferet Comércio de Roupas Ltda. – for the unauthorised reproduction of extracts from the songs “Do Leme ao Pontal” and “Você e eu, eu e você” by the famous late Brazilian singer Sebastião Rodrigues Maia (Tim Maia). The works, which are protected by copyright until 2069, were reproduced on T-shirts of the Brazilian brand Reserva without the necessary licence for such use.

 

According to the reporting judge, Marco Aurélio Bellizze, the reproduction of the lyrics on the T-shirts was not merely a reference, but a direct transcription, with minor modifications such as the addition of the symbol “&” and the omission of linking words. This understanding led to an increase in the amount of compensation, which now includes both the amount the company would have paid for the music licence and the total sales of the T-shirts with the lyrics. The R$ 600,000 cap previously requested by the defence was not accepted.

 

In addition to the violation of the reproduction rights of the musical works, the judgement emphasises an important point regarding the unauthorised use of trademarks associated with artists. Judge Bellizze noted that the association of an artist with a trademark without the artist’s consent can be harmful because it may imply that the artist endorses ideas or values with which he or she does not agree. This association can lead to a significant increase in sales of the brand, which benefits the infringer but does not reflect the artist’s will.

 

This part of the decision highlights the concern to protect the extra-patrimonial rights of Tim Maia, who died in 1998, and raises an important question: how should we interpret decisions on the copyright of works created by deceased artists? Is it possible to know, after the author’s death, whether he or she would approve or disapprove of the use of his or her work in a particular context, particularly in relation to trademarks created long after his or her death?

 

This question widens an important debate about the social function of copyright, especially after the author’s death.According to the Berne Convention and Brazilian law, copyright is protected for 70 years after the author’s death.During this period, the author’s heirs can exercise the related patrimonial rights. However, this 70-year exclusivity can raise concerns about the public interest, access to culture and the dissemination of knowledge, as the control of works can sometimes conflict with these objectives.

 

 

An example of this is the actions of Stephen Joyce, James Joyce’s grandson, who has banned several public performances of his grandfather’s works, making access to key works such as Ulysses more difficult.Similarly, the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien strictly controls access to the author’s writings, limiting the distribution of his work.These examples show how, in some cases, heirs can restrict access to culture and information, often for financial or ideological reasons, creating barriers to the dissemination of great authors’ legacies.

 

This debate on the social function of copyright is complex, involving the tension between the rights of heirs and the public right of access to culture and knowledge.

 

The exercise of inheritance rights by heirs should be carefully considered, taking into account the impact of these decisions on cultural, economic and technological development. It is therefore essential to continue to reflect on the implications of extending the protection of the works of deceased authors, always seeking a balance between private interests and the public interest.

 

It is worth contacting a lawyer specialised in intellectual property to understand the subject. Peduti Advogados can help you with this.

 

—

 

Author: Marília de Oliveira Fogaça and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: Espólio de Tim Maia e Reserva: um olhar sobre a sucessão do direito autoral https://www.jota.info/artigos/espolio-de-tim-maia-e-reserva-um-olhar-sobre-a-sucessao-do-direito-autoral

 

—

 

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

In a symbolic decision, the Federal Senate of Brazil approved on Tuesday, October 10, the bill aiming to establish guidelines for the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI) in Brazil. The text, a result of more than a year and a half of discussions, now proceeds to the House of Representatives for evaluation.

 

The bill introduces risk-based categories for AI systems and defines specific rules for their use. High-risk technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, biometric identification, and hiring processes, will require stricter supervision and safety standards. Systems with the potential to violate rights, such as autonomous weapons or tools ranking citizens for access to goods and services, will be prohibited.

 

Companies operating high-risk systems must conduct safety tests and prevent discrimination, while public agencies are required to ensure human oversight in automated decisions.

 

Another key aspect of the proposal is the protection of copyright. Companies using protected content for AI training will need to compensate creators, considering factors like company size and market impact. However, non-commercial uses by research institutions, libraries, and public archives will be exempt from payment, provided the original works are respected.

 

 

The initiative also includes measures to foster technological innovation. Small businesses will benefit from simplified regulations, and researchers will face fewer bureaucratic hurdles when developing new systems. Additionally, the proposal encourages cooperation between AI regulatory bodies and the Ministry of Labor to mitigate workforce impacts.

 

The Senate’s proposed regulation represents a significant step toward balancing technological innovation, security, and rights in Brazil. The expectation is that the debate will continue in the House, involving various sectors of society and the market.

 

If you wanna know more about the topic, fell free to contact Peduti Advogados.

 

—

 

Advogado(a) autor(a) do comentário: Enzo Toyoda Coppola e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Fonte:https://www.msn.com/pt-br/noticias/brasil/senado-aprova-marco-regulat%C3%B3rio-para-intelig%C3%AAncia-artificial-no-brasil/ss-AA1vNffz

 

—

 

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

Unfair competition is an industrial or commercial practice that violates the ethical and legal rules of free competition, with the purpose of gaining unfair advantages in the market by capturing customers from others. It is a very common practice in Brazil, but it is also very repressed by Brazilian legislation, so it is a crime under the Industrial Property Law, in Article 195, III.

 

Thus, the most significant unfair competition practices in Brazil are: (i) imitation of products or services; (ii) publication of false information about competitors; (iv) violation of commercial secrets; and (v) misuse of customers.

 

Based on these considerations, the practice of unfair competition can affect both companies and consumers. For companies, it can result in major financial damage, since there is a reduction in their sales and market participation, generating a large reduction in their revenues. In addition, there is a great possibility that the company’s reputation will be damaged, since consumers may buy a product of poor quality and be fooled into thinking that the product they were buying was from a different company than reality.

 

 

As for the consumer, there can be a number of consequences, including a reduction in the quality of the products or services purchased, a reduction of transparency, where consumers don’t know what they are really buying, as well as distrust in the market and serious safety risks, where products sold may not meet the safety standards required by legislation, as is the case with counterfeit products.

 

In view of all these facts, in a scenario where there is a large practice of unfair competition, such as in Brazil, it is extremely important to have proper legal advice to make sure that your creations are protected in Brazil, or even that you don’t commit practices of unfair competition against others and that you always comply with the legal procedures.

 

—

 

Author: Isabela Nicolella Vendramelli and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Source: 

https://www.brunnerdigital.com.br/concorrencia-desleal

https://riccipi.com.br/concorrencia-desleal/ 

 

—

 

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

The pharmaceutical sector in Brazil faces a pivotal moment as Brazilian and foreign pharmaceutical companies clash over the extension of 63 pharmaceutical patents. It all began in a 2021, when the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled unconstitutional the patent term extension previously granted under Article 40 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI). This decision has broad implications for the Brazilian pharmaceutical market, potentially impacting drug prices, market competition, and innovation incentives.

 

Historically, LPI stated that patents would have a term of 20 years from the filing date, offering a safeguard, since, if the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) took more than ten years to approve a patent application, the patent holder could be granted an additional period beyond the standard term. This provision was meant to compensate patent holders for delays in the approval process, ensuring they received a minimum period of protection.

 

The STF, however, ruled this mechanism unconstitutional, arguing that it would affect public access to affordable medications and stifled competition. The decision was issued with prospective effect, meaning it primarily affected patents granted after the decision, but it also applied retroactively in cases concerning pharmaceutical products. This retroactive application sparked the current dispute, as companies seek clarity on whether their existing patent protections can be preserved.

 

Retroactive application of judicial decisions in patent law is a complex issue, as it can upend established expectations and business models built on long-standing legal interpretations. The companies argue that patents granted under the previous understanding should not be stripped of their extended protection. Doing so, as they contend, would infringe upon legal certainty and undermine investor confidence in Brazil. On the other hand, critics maintain that public interest in accessing affordable medication justifies revisiting the patent terms.

 

 

The pharmaceutical industry relies heavily on IP protections to recoup research and development costs. Drug discovery and testing are costly and time-consuming, and patent exclusivity is often the only incentive for companies to invest in developing new treatments. However, public health advocates argue that extended patent protection delays the entry of affordable generic drugs into the market, limiting access to essential medications for millions of Brazilians.

 

The BPTO plays a central role in this dispute. As the responsible bureau for patent administration, it must navigate a challenging legal landscape to reconcile the STF’s decision with the pharmaceutical industry’s reliance on patent protections. Since the ruling, the BPTO has been cautious in handling pharmaceutical patents that were previously subject to extended terms, awaiting further judicial clarification.

 

For the pharmaceutical companies, this dispute will set a significant precedent for IP policies. A ruling favoring retroactive reduction of patent terms could open the door to more generic competition, but it may also discourage foreign investment in the country. A decision favoring patent holders could ensure a stable business environment but risk backlash over drug pricing and access.

 

As a BRICS member, Brazil often takes a unique approach to balancing IP protections with public health needs, and this case exemplifies it. Global pharmaceutical companies are closely monitoring the handling of this case, as it could prompt similar challenges in other countries where patent term extensions are granted to offset regulatory delays.

 

—

 

Author: Carlos Roberto Parra e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: https://www.jota.info/tributos-e-empresas/saude/farmaceuticas-brasileiras-e-estrangeiras-disputam-prazo-de-63-patentes

 

—

 

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

After 3 years of the action for the declaration of unconstitutionality (ADI 5529) judgment that prevented the validity of medicine patents for more than 20 years, several foreign and Brazilian pharmaceutical companies are seeking through the courts the extension of approximately 63 medicine patents in Brazil.

 

One of the pharmaceutical companies’ defense arguments is that, in other countries the event of proven slowness on the part of the public authorities in analyzing patent applications, an extra period of validity is granted through Patent Term Adjustment. 

 

On the other hand, representatives of generics and national industries claim that this extra period requested by pharmaceutical companies harms competitiveness in the Brazilian market.

 

 

It is worth noting that in recent disputes related to this topic, the Brazilian court denied a request to extend the term of the medicine patent, even after the INPI took 15 years to analyze the case. In view of the above, it is expected that Brazilian justice will maintain its understanding in these new cases pending decision.

 

It is important to mention that INPI has dedicated itself in recent months to reducing the backlog for analyzing patent applications.

 

—

 

Autores: Tatiane Robles Martins, Advogada Pleno e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados 

Fontes: https://www.jota.info/tributos-e-empresas/saude/farmaceuticas-brasileiras-e-estrangeiras-disputam-prazo-de-63-patentes

 

—

 

If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner or Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.

Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.