This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
JURISDICTION REPORT: BRAZIL


BRAZILIAN COURTS FIGHT TO FIX TRIPS VIOLATIONS


Otto Licks Leonardos & Licks Advogados


Ten years aſter amendments to the Brazilian Patent Law, the nation’s judiciary is fixing a Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement violation created by article 229-C, which mandates prior approval for all patents claiming pharmaceutical inventions for human use. Article 229-C established a fourth patentability requirement and a burdensome procedure creating uncertainty for applicants when the law granted to the country’s Food and Drug Agency (ANVISA) the statutory authority to decide the fate of patent applications according to political convenience.


Brazilian Federal Courts have been coping with the task of finding ways to ensure the predictability of the country’s patent system under the rule of law. Two recent decisions show a remarkable ability to harmonise ANVISA’s statutory authority under article 229-C with the work expected from a patent office and a sound patent system.


A writ of mandamus was decided on January 24, 2012, by Judge Solange Salgado of the First Federal Court in Brasilia, ruling that ANVISA must restrict itself to public health issues when faced with a request for prior approval.


"THE DECISION ESTABLISHED THAT ANVISA HAS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENTS, STATING THAT THE ONLY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY IN CHARGE OF REVIEWING THE PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENTS IS THE BRAZILIAN PATENT OFFICE."


Judge Salgado’s decision established that ANVISA has no statutory authority to examine patentability requirements, stating that the only legitimate government agency in charge of reviewing the patentability requirements is the Brazilian Patent Office (BPTO). Te decision goes further, analysing the different types of patents available in Brazil, such as normal utility patents and pipeline patents.


In a similar, and equally game-shiſting, ruling of January 25, 2012, Chief Appellate Judge Jirair Aram Meguerian of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, rejected ANVISA’s motion regarding how a prior approval examination should be carried by the agency, in light of article 18, item I, of the Brazilian Patent Law (Article 18. Te following are not patentable: I. Anything contrary to morals, good customs and public security, order and health;).


Chief Appellate Judge Meguerian ruled that the greater objective of article 229-C is to grant the possibility for ANVISA to guard against patents for


68


pharmaceutical products and processes when facing them against article 18, item I, of the patent law.


Te distinction of functions between the BPTO and ANVISA were once more reinforced in this decision because, in prior approvals, ANVISA denied patent registrations based on patentability requirements (novelty, inventive step, written description, etc) that should only be reviewed by the BPTO.


Furthermore, in the case at hand, ANVISA’s reluctance to grant prior approval made no sense, since it had already granted certificate of registration to the product covered by the patent application. Terefore, by granting the registration, ANVISA already recognised that the product did not go against good moral principles and conduct, security or public health.


Te Brazilian judiciary’s decision to confine ANVISA’s statutory authority under article 229-C to examination of the specific exclusion of patentable subject matter under article 18, item I, seeks to reduce the impact of such prior approval.


Te decisions give new hope to applications denied since the enactment of the offending law. All applications denied for lack of patentability requirements can seek to have ANVISA’s decisions denying prior approval nullified in Brazilian courts.


Te possibility is even more attractive because the Brazilian patent law established the possibility of a patent term of at least 10 years from grant, in addition to the 20 years from the filing date.


Otto Licks is a founding partner of Leonardos & Licks Advogados. He can be contacted at: otto.licks@leonardoslicks.com


World Intellectual Property Review January/February 2012 www.worldipreview.com


“ANVISA’S RELUCTANCE TO GRANT PRIOR APPROVAL MADE NO SENSE, SINCE IT HAD ALREADY GRANTED CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION TO THE PRODUCT COVERED BY THE PATENT APPLICATION.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100