Brazil: FDA issues guidelines for examination and prior consent of patent applications
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
Gift this article