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.”

Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region recognized the right of the pharmaceutical company to obtain data from Federal Revenue of Brazil of the importers and exporters of substance patented by it

Regarding Law No. 9279/96 (Industrial Property Law), a patent confers on its proprietor the right to prevent third parties from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for such purposes without his consent: I – a product that is the subject of a patent; II – a process, or product directly obtained by a patented process.

 

Thus, in a trial on October 10, 2022, the 6th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region recognized the right of the pharmaceutical company Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited to obtain data from Federal Revenue of Brazil of the importers and exporters of substance patented by it (Lisdexamphetamine).

 

 

In this case, the patent-holder company claimed its exclusive rights by requesting that the Federal Revenue of Brazil provides the data of any importers and exporters after it heard that the substance it patented could be manufactured, marketed, and imported without its consent.

 

The judgment of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region is in line with Brazilian legislation and is an advance in the protection of patent rights.

 

Lawsuit: 1080560-91.2021.4.01.3400

 

—

Author: Thaís de Kássia Rodrigues Almeida Penteado, Senior Associate & Head of Litigation at Peduti Advogados.

—

“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.”

Here’s why Patents aren’t bad for innovation nor a threat to your company

Patents aren’t bad

Recently, Elon Musk made an appearance on CNBC’s “Jay Leno’s Garage” to host a tour around his SpaceX Star base facility in Texas [1]. 

 

Besides showing the amazing things Elon and his SpaceX crew have been building for their Mars Mission, when asked by Leno about “regulations and red tapes” regarding his inventions, Musk responded:

 

“Something that we should be worried about is that the rules and regulations get more and more every year. […] In the past, war has wiped away bad rules and regulations, but also, we prefer not to have war as the means of getting rid of rules and regulations. In the absence of that, what happens is there are more laws and more regulations every single year, and eventually we won’t be able to do anything. […] So, we do need to be cautious about overregulating and having too many rules and regulations basically stopping innovation and actually ultimately limiting the advance of civilization.” [SIC]

 

Moreover, when asked about the patents over his techniques to build his rockets, Elon said that he and his crew don’t patent things and don’t care about it either, opening source of all his “patents” so that anyone could use them.

 

Musk finished his statement by saying that “patents are for the weak”, “generally used as a blocking technique” and not actually helping advance things, but “stopping others from following you”. 

 

It’s not the first time Musk shared his opinion regarding intellectual property rights, specifically patents. In 2014, “in the spirit of the open-source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology” [2], Tesla announced that it would not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wanted to use its technology [3], stating that patents “serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors”. 

 

Without failing to recognize Musk’s successful trajectory, it’s important to respond to some of his statements. 

 

1. Firstly, it’s important to highlight that a patent is a title of exclusivity of exploitation granted to the holder of the invention – a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem [4] – by the State.

In most countries [5], for an invention to achieve a title of patent, it must go through a rigid process of study by professionals who will examine requirements for novelty (the object under analyses must be different from anything seen before in the market), inventive step (it must also contribute to the advancement of the technique or technology of a new product or new process), and industrial application (it must contain proof of human intellect effort). Without any of these requirements, the title won’t be granted. 

 

Which means, having a patent under your archive of creations is the same as attesting your ability to create something never seen before in the market with an extent of utility for society. Which cannot be misled as a curse for any business. 

 

Patents aren’t bad

 

2. The purpose of an intellectual property system and its protection resides on the promotion of the stock of knowledge available to society, as well as its dissemination and use at the end of the exclusivity period.

About this purpose, the Brazilian IPO makes a good point [6]. In summary, the importance of a patent resides on the empowerment of the patent holder during the period of its validity. Which does not equal as a blockage of use of the invention, but as a form of knowledge over the market, giving the creator the ability to know what markets show interest in its invention, as well as the purpose of its exploitation – which meets Elon’s interests, as he makes some of his creations available to the public to encourage innovation, and by knowing the ones that are using his creations, he will be able to form an even better data to do so. 

 

3. Besides that, it’s important to highlight that a patent’s protection is not perpetual. Thus, when its validity comes to an end, the information transferred to the database of the IPO system returns to the public domain. This means that the information does not go missing even after years of use. And even though Elon perceives as if his inventions won’t have any use in the future, there are no doubts that they will always carry a lot of useful information, which can be broken into pieces and studied even further [7]. 

 

4. The strategy used by Elon and his team does not apply to the common market. Entrepreneurs must have in mind that Elon’s beliefs rely on a market that does not have a considerable competition. 

In this sense, having the control over an invention can be used as a market strategy. Imagine being Steve Jobs and creating the iPhone, while sharing space with companies such as Samsung or Motorola. Perhaps you have on your hand a competitive advantage worth the protection [8]. 

In the face of all these reasons, it’s not fair or clever to believe that patents are bad for innovation or a threat to your company, especially when viewed through the lens of a more palpable competitive market.

 

—

Author: Juliana Kaomy Mikado, Junior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: 

[1] ELON MUSK SHOWS JAY LENO HIS SPACEX ROCKETS | Jay Leno’s Garage Full Episode. Directed by: Marcia Xinatris. Produced by: Marcia Xinatris. Youtube. 23 de set. de 2022. Duration: 44’26’’. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goT5gW57Chc&t=329s> Access on September 28th, 2022.

 

[2] MUSK, Elon. All Our Patent Are Belong To You. Published on July 12th, 2014. Available at: <https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you> . Access on September 28th, 2022. 

 

[3] Patent Pledge. In Additional Resources. Published on November 7, 2014. Available at: <https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#open-source>. Access on: September 28th, 2022.

 

[4] Patents. In. Wipo.int. Disponível em: < https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/>. Access on: September 28th, 2022.

 

[5] To look for more information regarding the countries that contract under the Paris Convention, which rules over industrial property in the widest sense, including patents, trademarks, industrial designs, utility models, service marks, trade names, geographical indications and the repression of unfair competition. Click here: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/treaties/en/docs/pdf/paris.pdf

 

[6] Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (Brasil).  Patente: da importância e sua proteção: patente de invenção e modelo de utilidade. / Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial; organização: Elizabeth Ferreira da Silva; autores: Elizabeth Ferreira da Silva [et al.]; revisão: Sérgio Bernardo. Rio de Janeiro: INPI, 2021. In free translation: “A patente outorgada pelo estado tem como condição a descrição do invento para que um técnico possa reproduzir a tecnologia ao término da vigência da proteção. A exclusividade do mercado, durante o tempo da vigência, empodera o titular da patente na comercialização do invento e no controle do mercado, de acordo com as suas estratégias. Portanto, o conhecimento tecnológico protegido é passível de troca entre os agentes econômicos. A proteção agrega valor ao estabelecer a exclusividade temporária sobre o conhecimento, impondo limite a sua comercialização, concedendo lhe valor de troca e solicitação de autorização prévia para fins comerciais, apoiados numa relação contratual entre as partes da contratação. Portanto, o contrato é o instrumento para o estabelecimento das condições da exploração do conhecimento protegido. Quando a proteção termina, a informação já revelada, retorna ao domínio público, ou seja, ao acesso de todos à comercialização, sem que seja necessária autorização prévia. O domínio público disponibiliza a sociedade o conhecimento para produção, comercialização e o ingresso de outros agentes econômicos no mercado, o que aumenta à concorrência e dinamiza o ambiente econômico, contribuindo para o crescimento econômico e a geração de empregos.”

 

[7] Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (Brasil).  Patente: da importância e sua proteção: patente de invenção e modelo de utilidade. / Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial; organização: Elizabeth Ferreira da Silva; autores: Elizabeth Ferreira da Silva [et al.]; revisão: Sérgio Bernardo. Rio de Janeiro: INPI, 2021. “O sistema de patente exige a descrição da invenção de forma a permitir a reprodução do invento tecnológico contribuindo para o aumento do nível do estoque de conhecimento à sociedade, evitando retrabalho e custos associados ao que já foi revelado. Portanto, a busca do conhecimento tecnológico na base de dados de patentes permite acompanhar a evolução tecnológica até as tecnologias mais pioneiras, na fronteira do conhecimento. Como o conhecimento é tornado público, pela publicação do conteúdo depositado nas bases dos Escritórios nacionais ou regionais de depósito, as comunidades acadêmicas- científica e empresarial se beneficiam do conhecimento revelado para promover o avanço das pesquisas e desenvolvimentos na geração de novos conhecimentos, a partir do que há de mais pioneiro no estado da técnica. Portanto, para fins de pesquisa o conhecimento protegido não impede o avanço científico e tecnológico.”

 

[8] Furthermore, alongside Elon’s opinion, in 2021 an article was published on the Harvard Business Review  exploring ownership engineering strategies, which includes three market approaches: (i) Tolerating Theft (achieve consumers through aspiration and taste); (ii) forgoing ownership (“Being first is often reward enough, even without any additional ownership incentives”); and (iii) leaning into ambiguity (“It’s better to ask for forgiveness, than permission.”). Even though these are strategies followed by big companies as SpaceX, Microsoft and HBO, most inventions depend on a patent’s protection as they are part of a production process, for instance technologies related to sustainable agriculture, since this type of technology affects the final value of the product, but not the product itself. (HELLER, Michael. SALZMAN, James. Elon Musk Doesn’t Care About Patents. Should you? In. Harvard Business Review. Published on March 04th, 2021. Available at: < https://hbr.org/2021/03/elon-musk-doesnt-care-about-patents-should-you>. Access on: September 29, 2022.)

 

VEJA, Nicolas. Elon Musk says ‘patents are for the weak’ as he talks Starship rocket, tours SpaceX Starbase with Jay Leno. In CNBC MAKE IT. Available at:<https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/21/why-elon-musk-says-patents-are-for-the-weak.html> Access on September 29, 2022.

FERREIRA, Ademir Antônio. GUIMARÃES, Edilson Rodrigues. CONTADOR, José Celso. Patente como Patente como instrumento competitivo e como fonte de informação tecnológica. Gest. Prod., São Carlos, v. 16, n. 2, p. 209-221, abr.-jun. 2009.

 

—

“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.”

 

STJ decides that the term of validity of a patent granted by the mailbox system is 20 years

STJ decides that the term of validity of a patent granted by the mailbox system is 20 years

In a recent judgment, the Second Section of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in terms of repetitive resources, defined that the term of validity of a patent granted by the mailbox system is 20 years.

According to the opinion of Minister Nancy Andrighi, who presented the winning thesis in the repetitive trial, the term provided for in the sole paragraph of article 40 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), do not apply to patents deposited in the manner stipulated by article 229, sole paragraph, of the said law.

 

 

In a certain part of the vote, the rapporteur stated:

In the case of patents exceptionally deposited by the mailbox system, the LPI, in its final and transitory provisions (article 229, sole paragraph), established an express rule ensuring protection limited only to a period of 20 years (or 15, for utility models) counted from the day of deposit (as stipulated by the aforementioned article 40, caput)”

The decision will reflect on the reduction of the patent’s right time.

—

Author: Sheila de Souza Rodrigues, Senior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Prazo de vigência de patentes mailbox é de 20 anos contados da data do depósito do pedido pelo interessado

—

“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.”

Unconstitutionality of the sole paragraph in article 40 of the Brazilian IP Law

Unconstitutionality of the sole paragraph in article 40 of the Brazilian IP Law

Amid the global pandemic, the Brazilian Supreme Court’s (STF) judgment is very much expected about action for the declaration of unconstitutionality (ADI 5529) of paragraph of article 40 to the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (or by the Portuguese acronym, “LPI”) filed by Attorney General of the Republic.

In short, the lawsuit seeks to force discussion about the validity of a patent counted from its grant date by BPTO.

According to the rule laid down in article 40, sole paragraph, of the IP Law:

“Article 40 – The term of a patent for an invention shall be 20 (twenty) years and for a utility model 15 (fifteen) years as from the filing date.

Unconstitutionality of the sole paragraph in article 40 of the Brazilian IP Law

Sole Paragraph – The term shall not be less than 10 (ten) years for inventions and 7 (seven) years for utility models, as from the date of grant, except where INPI is prevented from carrying out the substantive examination of the application due to pending litigation or for reasons beyond its control.”

However, there is divided opinion regarding unconstitutional of paragraph of article 40 to the Brazilian Industrial Property Law among jurists and technology development enthusiasts.

While some argue that the declaration that the article is unconstitutional will be detrimental to various sectors of innovation and technology, mainly because the period of exclusivity warranted to the owner is one of the pillars of the patent system, others maintain that the rule violates devices of procedural celerity on the Brazilian Public Administration and disobeys different constitutional principles, such as freedom of competition and consumer protection, because the rule creates an indefinite term for patents and utility models.

—

Lawyer Author of the Comment: Sheila de Souza Rodrigues

Source: Global NGO asks govts to support India’s ‘landmark’ proposal seeking IP waiver on Covid-19 drugs

“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.”

PATENTS IN BRAZIL: DECISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (STJ) CONSIDER INVALID AN INFRALEGAL ACT OF THE BPTO’S RESOLUTION NO. 113/2013

Patents in brazil: decision of the superior court of justice (stj) consider invalid an infralegal act of the bpto’s resolution no. 113/2013

The Brazilian Industrial Property Agents Association – ABAPI filed a Public Civil Action seeking discuss about whether it is valid or not an infralegal act of the BPTO’s Resolution No. 113/2013 was created to regulate the procedures related to the control of payment of anual fee for patentes in Brazil.

This Resolution generate disagreement because several patents and patent application have been declared irremediably forfeited due to non-payment of annuities.

The monocratic decision welcomed the request formulated by the plaintiff based on the article 87 to the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (or by the Portuguese acronym, “LPI”).

According to the rule laid down in article 87 to the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (or by the Portuguese acronym, “LPI”):

“The patent application and patent may be restored, if the applicant or patentee so requests, within 3 (three) months from the notification of the dismissal of the application or the extinguishment of the patent, upon payment of a specific fee.”.

Patents in brazil: decision of the superior court of justice (stj) consider invalid an infralegal act of the bpto’s resolution no. 113/2013
Source: migalhas.uol.com.br/

Posteriorly, the Federal Court of Appeal for the 2nd Region (TRF2) decided to dismiss the Appeal of BPTO.

On September 04, in the judgment of Special Appeal under Specific Court Regulations nº 1.837.439, The Superior Court of Justice – STJ, the highest Brazilian court for standardizing the interpretation of federal law all over the country – confirmed the understanding of the Federal Court of Appeal for the 2nd Region.

In short, the Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva understood that “While the article 87 of the LPI allows the patent holder or applicant to request the restoration, within the period of 3 (three) months from the notification, the BPTO’s resolution limits the application of institute to a requirement not foreseen in the LPI.” and concluded that the article 87 creates a new opportunity for a upon payment of a special fee, that is, creates an exception to the rule of extinction of the patent for non-payment

—

Lawyer Author of the Comment: Sheila de Souza Rodrigues

Source

Headline: Ato infralegal do INPI não pode restringir direito de restauração de patente previsto em lei

“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.”

IP for startups in Brazil

Intellectual property’s rights is for sure one of the concerns a startup needs to worry about, and it is important to identify when to protect your rights, and what are the priorities to be protected.

Initially, when there is a consensus on which trademark will be used for the products or services provided, it is recommended to file an application for a trademark registration as soon as possible, even if it is in the name of one of the founders, transferring the ownership in the future, when a legal entity is constituted.

A trademark registration is a preventive measure, since, if the startup decides to register the trademark only in the future, when it has already invested in advertising, or the trademark is already stamped on its products and materials, it is possible that the trademark will be already registered in the name of a third party, for the same market segment, so it will be necessary to change the name, giving rise to losses.

In this same sense, it is important to register the domain name (address of the company’s website) right away, in order to guarantee its availability of use, even for a future moment, when the startup will be, in fact, in activity.

Regarding patent protection, despite the possibility of the founders having a brilliant idea in their hands, it is not possible to protect an idea in Brazil, since a patent must meet the requirements: a) inventive step; b) novelty; and c) industrial application. The protection of this idea, however, may be carried out in the future, when it fulfills such requirements, as well as it is possible to sign a confidentiality term between the companies involved in the startup, in order to avoid greater risks.

—

Lawyer Author of the Comment: DRM

“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.”

The Brazilian Patent Office (INPI) and the European Patent Office (EPO) are developing a project to improve patent examination

patents

INPI and EPO signed on November 26, 2019 a partnership agreement to improve the examination of patents.

INPI and EPO will cooperate on improving the capacity to search and analyze patent applications by training and discussing best practices, sharing tools and exchanging databases.

patents
source: INPI

The agreement’s activities will be based on the two-year work plan agreed between the two institutions.

Moreover, The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) signed between Brazil and Europe was also renewed. PPH allows the use of the search already made by the other offices in order to exam the patent application. After signing this agreement the patents in Brazil shall be granted faster.

—

Lawyer Author of the Comment: Laila dos Reis Araujo
Source
Headline: INPI e EPO lançam parceria técnica e estratégica na área de 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.”

The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice decides as valid a pharmaceutical patent for HIV treatment

The Brazilian Superior Court, located in Brasilia, the last instance for discussions of decisions that contravene federal laws, has recently decided as valid a pharmaceutical patent for HIV treatment.

The dismissed case was about a patent granted for Abbot Laboratories, a company from United States of America. The pharmaceutical patent is related to the medicine Kaletra, an antiviral for the HIV treatment.

The patent of the case was analysed by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office without an exam of the patentability in Brazil, once it was granted as a pipeline patent, when the Brazilian autarchy must revalidate the exam made abroad.  The pipeline patents were provided by the Brazilian industrial property legislation and had to be required in Brazil during the first year after the publication of the Brazilian Industrial Property law, occurred on 14 May, 1996, since the previous legislation did not allow pharmaceutical patents.

The nullity action was filed by another company, arguing essentially that the Brazilian Autarchy did not analyse properly the legal requirements for patentability and has granted the patent without a preliminary consent of the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency, regarding the possible risks of the medicine to the public health.

During the lawsuit, the federal judge of the first instance has decided as null the patent, being that sentence reformed by the Federal Circuit Court of Rio de Janeiro, since the consent of the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency was given during the lawsuit. Thus, the Brazilian Superior Court considered also the lack of that consent as a defect possible to be provisioned even after the patent was granted, since the pharmaceutical company should not be penalized for this delay of the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency.

—

Lawyer Author of the Comment: Rodrigo Britto de Albergaria
Source
Headline: “Terceira Turma mantém validade da patente de medicamento usado no tratamento da Aids”

“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.”

Study about biotechnology patents is published by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office. The study will certainly help the Brazilian authorities to analyse the need for Brazil to sign the Budapest Treaty.

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office – BPTO has recently published a new study about biotechnology patents in Brazil, analysing the deposits in which it was deposited biological material.

The study shows the panorama of the deposits of biotechnology patents in Brazil between 2010 and 2016.

The Biotechnology can be applied, for example, on therapeutic proteins, probiotics, immunologic medicaments, vaccines, plagues control, biofertilization, biofuels, biosensors and plant genetic improvement.

Since it is necessary a description of the patent’s object for the concession of any patent, the depositors of biotechnology patents also need to deposit the biologic material alive at an authorized institution. There are some kinds of biological material able to be deposited, as DNA or protein sequence listing, bacterial strains, yeast strains, fungus strains, protozoal strains and cell lineage.

Fonte: API

During this period, the researchers have found 1.583 deposits of biotechnology patents in Brazil. Among the principal kinds of deposit, from all those biological material deposits, 682 were microorganisms, 386 for medicaments and 332 sub products of fermentation. The five principal depositors were Brazilian universities, being the Federal University of Minas Gerais the top depositor, with 154 deposits, the University of São Paulo the second, with 117 deposits, and the University of Campinas the third, with 71 deposits. Regarding the geographical distribution, the principal region of origin of the deposits is the Southeast Region, with 899 deposits, where are located the three biggest metropolitan areas and the three principal depositors, while the North Region, where the Amazonian forest is located, has only 30 deposits.

It is also important verify that only 2,15 % of the deposits had its biological materials also deposited at International Depositary Authorities, probably as a consequence of the fact that Brazil has not signed the Budapest Treaty yet.

The Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). According the Budapest Treaty, the deposits of biologic material can be made at an authorized international depositary authority, what make easier for the deposit of a biotechnology patent in other country.

The study will certainly help the Brazilian authorities to analyse the need for Brazil to sign the Budapest Treaty.

—

Lawyer Author of the Comment: Rodrigo Britto de Albergaria
Source
Headline: “Novo radar tecnológico mapeia patentes de biotecnologia e material biológico”

“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.”