The growth in the number of patent applications in the world and the current position of Brazil

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released last year’s statistics for the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the Madrid Agreement and the Hague System. 

According to the WIPOs publication, there has been a record increase in demand for protection of patentable products and processes in the last year, with a total of 278,100 new patent applications. The increase was 0.3% compared to the previous number.

Among all the countries that used the Patent Cooperation Treaty system, there was a 25% increase in applications filed in India, followed by South Korea, with the number of 6.2% more applications than in the previous year. 

According to WIPO, the number of designs included in international applications in the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs increased by 11.2% in 2022, with a total of 25,028 registrations. In this system, Germany ranks first (with 4,909 drawings registered), followed by China (2,558), Italy (2,414), United States (2,412) and Switzerland (2,178 drawings). 

 

 

Today, Brazil occupies the 61st position, having presented only one project in 2022. It should be noted that much of this increase is due to the fact that on February 2023, Brazil officially joined the Hague Convention for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. With its accession, Brazil will become the second Latin American country (after Mexico) and the 79th member to adhere to the Convention.

 

After all, what is the logical conclusion that we can reach with these numbers?

These numbers clearly demonstrates that even with the world economy facing a delicate moment, in which much is said about a globalized economic recession, what we saw in the last year is that more and more companies are concerned with protecting the products and processes resulting from their research and development.

If you are interested in protecting an invention as a patent, or extending the protection of your patent/industrial design application to other countries of interest, count with Peduti!

 

—

Author: Bruno Arminio and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: BRASIL OCUPA AS 30 PRIMEIRAS POSIÇÕES EM PEDIDOS DE PATENTES INTERNACIONAIS

—

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

Main differences between an invention patent and an utility model by Brazilian law

In Brazilian Law of Intellectual Property (Law nº 9.269/1996), there are two types of invention: the Invention Patent and the utility model. In this article, we will cover the main aspects of each protection right, as well as the requirements needed to file and achieve these registers.

The article 8 of the Intellectual Property Brazilian law handles the requisites of the Invention Patent, while its article X handles the demands needed in the Utility Model process:

Article 8 – To be patentable an invention must meet the requirements of novelty, inventive activity and industrial application

Article 9 – An object of practical use, or part thereof, is patentable as a utility model, when it is susceptible of industrial application, presents a new shape or arrangement and involves an inventive act that results in a functional improvement in its use or manufacture

That way, for an invention to fulfill the “novelty” requirement, it can’t be envolved by the state of art, which, in turn, correspond to all that was accessible to the public before the date of filing of a patent application.

The “industrial application” demand means that the functionality object of the application needs to be susceptible to production and use by any kind of industry.

The last requisite is what tells both protection rights apart. The Invention Patent requires Inventive Activity, while the Utility Model requires only an Inventive Act.

By Inventive Activity we understand that the functionality, beyond being new, needs to not derive in an evident or obvious manner from the state of the art, by the eye of a person skilled in the art. If not, any professional could have come up with said funcitonality, which consequently would not consist in an actual invention.

 

 

The Inventive Act, on the other hand, is a concept analogous to Inventive Activity.

Said object of practical use envolves Invetive Act when, for a person skilled in the art, it does not derive in a common or usual manner from the state of the art.

Evidently, the difference between both concepts is subtle. We can consider that the Utility Model is an improvement inside the scope of a previous Invention Patent, in a way that it is restricted to the form or disposition of an object, while a new Invention Patent would consist in a more wide-ranging functionality.

To help us have a better understanding of this concept, the Law 9.269/1996 (IP Law), in its article 10, lists examples of what cannot be considered as Utility Models:

Article 10 – The following are not considered to be inventions or utility models:

I – discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

II – purely abstract concepts;

III – schemes, plans, principles or methods of a commercial, accounting, financial, educational, publishing, lottery or fiscal nature;

IV – literary, architectural, artistic and scientific works or any aesthetic creation;

V – computer programmes per se;

VI – the presentation of information;

VII – rules of games;

VIII – operating or surgical techniques and therapeutic or diagnostic methods, for use on the human or animal body; and

IX – natural living beings, in whole or in part, and biological material, including the genome or germ plasm of any natural living being, when found in nature or isolated therefrom, and natural biological processes. 

Its also important to consider that, in consequence of the said discrepancy between the institute’s demands, they have a different terms. A Patent of invention will have a term of 20 (twenty) years and a utility model patent a term of 15 (fifteen) years, counted from the filing date.

That way, having a better view of these two concepts, the inventor will be ale to register its invention in Brazil, without having any delays or complicstions.

—

Author: Enzo Toyoda Coppola, Junior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Lei de Propriedade Industrial (Lei nº 9.279/96)

—

“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.”