Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Breaking: Brazil SC rules patent extensions unconstitutional


In a nine to two ruling, justices decided in Direct Action 5,529 to remove the guarantee of a 10-year minimum term for successful drug patent applicants

The Brazil Supreme Court yesterday removed the guarantee of a 10-year minimum term for successful pharmaceutical patent applicants.

Ruling nine to two in Direct Action 5,529, the court rendered the sole paragraph of Article 40 of Brazil's Industrial Property Law unconstitutional.

The court will come together again next Wednesday, May 12, to decide whether the ruling should have retroactive effect.

If the justices decide that it does, granted patents for pharmaceutical and biotech inventions would have their term of validity reduced to 20 years counted from the filing date, instead of 10 years counted from the date of grant.

That means that patents that were held up by long waiting times at Brazil's IP office would have their terms significantly cut. 

As a general rule, a Supreme Court decision invalidating a legal provision does have retroactive effect. But if eight or more justices agree, the court could decide that retroactive effect should not take place in a particular case. 

The reporting justice for this case, Dias Toffoli, has proposed that granted patents should not be affected by this decision, with two exceptions: patents in the pharmaceutical and medical fields, and patents whose validity terms are being challenged before courts based on arguments that the sole paragraph of Article 40 violates the constitution.

Justice Marco Aurelio indicated he believed there should be no exceptions to the court’s retroactivity rule, and that the decision should affect all granted patents. 

Meanwhile, Justice Gilmar Mendes indicated that a retroactive effect should be limited to pharma and medical patents related to COVID-19.

Justice Roberto Barroso mentioned he would agree with an exception related to patents that are subject to invalidity lawsuits, but not with an exception for patents in the pharmaceutical and medical fields, because this would violate the TRIPS Agreement.

Ricardo Nunes, partner at Daniel Law, said: “Even the justices that already articulated their initial thoughts on whether a decision should affect granted patents or not can still change their minds when the court happens to discuss this matter, so this is still a completely unsettled issue.”

On Wednesday, May 5, the justices at the Brazil Supreme Court started handing down their opinions on Direct Action 5,529, and finished yesterday.

The news comes after the Supreme Court suspended patent-term extensions in Brazil on April 7 in the lead up to the Direct Action 5,529 trial, in an attempt to lower costs for drugs critical to treating COVID patients at the expense of pharmaceutical firms.

Sources told Managing IP last year that such a ruling, which has now come to pass, would significantly water down the value of patents in Brazil so long as Brazil's IP office takes more than 10 years to prosecute them.

Managing IP will report on the outcome of the judge’s meeting on May 12 next week.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Federal Circuit said tech firms can challenge the way the USPTO implemented Fintiv, but that won’t mean much for practitioners, say counsel
The England and Wales High Court handed down one of the most hotly anticipated FRAND rulings for some time
Funders discuss different IP portfolio funding options and how they decide whether to offer preferential terms and pricing
The issue of the Unified Patent Court’s third central division needs resolving before IP owners can fully embrace Europe’s new era
Foreign firms and lawyers, including IP practitioners, can now practise in India after years of talk and no action