IP IN BRAZIL
BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS
There still are some cultural, legal and procedural barriers that must be overcome before the potential of Brazil’s life sciences sector can be realised, as Gabriel Di Blasi and Mellina Mamede of Di Blasi, Parente & Associados explain.
A
lthough Brazil has been ranked by the World Bank as the world’s seventh biggest economy, and is able to develop
great technology, especially due to its extensive biodiversity, it has not become self-suffi cient in the life sciences fi eld.
T ere are several reasons for this. For example, Brazil used not to recognise patent protection for drugs and consequently greatly discouraged companies from investing in pharmaceutical technology. However, following the enactment of Law No. 9,279/96 (the intellectual property law), pharmaceutical products and processes could be patented in Brazil.
But even aſt er the law’s enactment, the Brazilian life sciences industry
still required deep
knowledge and resources to develop products and processes. T is led to the enactment of Ordinance 837/12, which aims to bring together domestic and foreign public institutions
34 Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review and private entities to execute productive development partnerships (PDPs).
PDP goals A PDP is intended to develop technologies in the following fi elds: drugs; adjuvants; haemocomponents and haemoderivatives; vaccines; serum; biological or biotechnological products of human or animal origin; medical products (equipment and materials for use in healthcare); diagnostic products for use in vitro; and materials, parts, pieces, soſt ware and other critical technological components.
Moreover, Ordinance 837/12 allows a private company to incorporate joint ventures or consortia and contract with public entities to develop products and processes, as well as transfer and acquire technologies.
T rough this regulation, the Brazilian government’s Volume 2, Issue 1
goal is to access the mentioned technologies, developed by or transferred to Brazilian companies, in order to reduce the technology gap of the public health system and, over the long term, reduce the prices of related products and internally develop new technologies.
T e government therefore supervises the interaction and development of PDPs during the fi rst 12 months. If the government decides there is a lack of eff ective advance in the production and/ or transfer of technology, it may terminate the partnership.
Some PDPs have been executed and accepted by the government. However, although it seems to be a good initiative for both industry and society, some barriers may still jeopardise the system. Sometimes, for example, a confl ict of culture between the parties may disrupt the completion of its obligations, even if that confl ict arises only because of a misunderstanding in communication,
www.lifesciencesipreview.com
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