Brazil: FDA issues guidelines for examination and prior consent of patent applications

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Brazil: FDA issues guidelines for examination and prior consent of patent applications

Sponsored by

daniel-400px.png
christina-victoria-craft-whsnkiwwpec-unsplash.jpg

Rafael Salomão Romano and Samantha Salim of Daniel Law outline how the instructions will improve transparency and accountability in the Brazilian pharmaceutical patent scene

The Brazilian National Agency for Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA – Brazilian FDA) has issued four guidelines related to examination and prior consent of pharmaceutical patent applications. The main purpose of these guidelines is to provide clear and objective guidance to the examiners of the agency in examining patent applications received from the Brazilian National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI – Brazilian PTO), in addition to providing greater transparency for patent owners and attorneys in relation to the steps and criteria used during examination.

In Brazil, all patent applications from the pharmaceutical field (including biotech cases) are sent to ANVISA to obtain prior consent, in addition to the ordinary prosecution held at INPI. Once the prior consent is given, INPI resumes its prosecution. ANVISA is responsible for analysing whether the subject matter of a patent application represents a threat to public health, through the protection of substances/products whose use is prohibited in Brazil.




However, whenever the claimed matter of an application may be of interest to the Brazilian universal healthcare system (SUS), prior consent is usually accompanied by a technical opinion on patentability, in addition to public health issues. ANVISA’s opinion is not binding and is considered by INPI as third-party observations. 



ANVISA’s guidelines specify therapeutic destinations that serve as the basis for the publication of prior consent with subsidies to the examination, as well as the understanding of this agency in relation to the patentability criteria, which differs from INPI in some relevant aspects, such as the protection of invention of selection, polymorphism, hybridoma and second medical use claims.



With the guidelines, it is expected that the agency’s actuation will be subject to more transparency and accountability. 





Rafael Salomão Romano

Partner, Daniel Law

E: rafael.salomao@daniel-ip.com



Samantha Salim

Patent specialist, Daniel Law

E: samantha.salim@daniel-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

New members of the Access Advance patent pool and Harvard University coming under fire were also among the top talking points
Team from Graham Watt & Co will join Beck Greener’s London office
The firm reported a small uptick in overall revenue and profit per equity partner, while its IP team secured notable life sciences victories
Paul Ainsworth, who secured a settlement for his client in a patent dispute, says the case shows why medical claims by dietary supplement companies can threaten IP rights
Boies Schiller Flexner joins forces with Grünecker to target Skechers in Europe following US lawsuit
Helen Mutimer discusses how the firm’s IP advisory services are filling a gap in the market, and why life sciences work is soaring
In major recent developments, a confidentiality request was rejected, Samsung and its representative A&O Shearman secured a partial win, and EIP made a new hire
Tomas Wässingbo joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why he wants to change the perception around designs
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the Australian Taxation Office was advised by Australian-headquartered law firm MinterEllison
The firm said revenue from its ‘refreshed and expanded’ IP team increased by 4% in FY25
Gift this article