News

The expiry of the semaglutide patent in Brazil on March 20, 2026, opened the door to a new phase of competition in the market for medicines used to treat type 2 diabetes and manage weight. Months later, the effects are beginning to emerge, with new versions of the active ingredient entering the market and domestic and international pharmaceutical companies pursuing commercial opportunities.

According to a report published by EXAME on October 23, only two of the new synthetic versions identified in its survey were already available in Brazilian pharmacies: Ozivy, from EMS, and Semavy, from Hypera Pharma. Other companies were still awaiting regulatory or commercial steps before launching their products.

The developments illustrate how patent expiry can change competitive conditions without removing the other requirements involved in bringing a pharmaceutical product to market.

What changed when the patent expired?

In January 2026, Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) Fourth Panel ruled against extending the patent terms for Ozempic and Rybelsus, both owned by Novo Nordisk. The decision followed the legal understanding that delays in administrative patent examination do not justify judicial extensions beyond the term established under Brazilian law.

The semaglutide patent subsequently expired on March 20, 2026, allowing other companies to develop medicines containing the same active ingredient, subject to the applicable regulatory requirements.

This marked a competitive turning point for Brazil’s pharmaceutical industry. Companies that had previously faced patent exclusivity as a barrier to entry gained new opportunities to develop and commercialize products.

However, patent expiry does not automatically authorize a medicine for manufacture and sale. Commercialization remains subject to health regulations, including demonstrating quality, safety, and efficacy to Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa).

Which companies are competing in this market?

The market’s opening has attracted manufacturers with different development, production, and distribution capabilities. Companies identified in EXAME’s report include EMS, Hypera Pharma, Ávita Care, Sun Pharmaceutical, Brainfarma, Ranbaxy and Germed.

Products are progressing through different regulatory and commercial stages. As of October 2026, Ozivy, from EMS, and Semavy, from Hypera Pharma, were the two new synthetic versions identified in the report as commercially available.

Other products, including Owozy, Seemasun, Zempneo, Orsema and Semaclique, had received regulatory approval but were not yet available in pharmacies, according to the report. The survey also identified a registration for a generic version of synthetic semaglutide from EMS.

The distinction between regulatory approval and commercial availability shows that entering a pharmaceutical market requires more than product development. Manufacturing capacity, distribution arrangements, commercial positioning, and compliance with applicable requirements can all affect launch timelines.

Why does patent expiry not end the intellectual property protection?

The expiry of a patent ends the exclusivity granted by that particular right, within the scope of its subject matter and term. It does not, by itself, mean that every technology associated with a medicine is free from intellectual property protection.

Depending on the circumstances, formulations, manufacturing processes, delivery devices and other technical solutions may be covered by separate rights, provided they meet the applicable legal requirements and are protected by valid titles.

Companies assessing market-entry opportunities must therefore consider the full set of potentially relevant rights rather than relying solely on the expiry date of the patent associated with an active ingredient.

In the pharmaceutical sector, this assessment can influence research and development decisions, licensing agreements, industrial partnerships and launch strategies. Identifying opportunities also requires careful examination of patent claims and the legal status of relevant rights.

Regulatory approval and commercial strategy are separate stages

The development of new semaglutide products also illustrates the difference between the ability to develop a product after patent exclusivity ends and the authorization to market it.

In March 2026, Anvisa reported that applications for medicines containing the same active ingredient were at different stages of review. The agency emphasized that patent expiry did not remove the requirement to demonstrate quality, safety, and efficacy.

The agency granted additional registrations in the following months. Nevertheless, regulatory approval did not mean that every product would immediately become available in pharmacies.

For pharmaceutical companies, this calls for integrated planning. Patent analysis must be considered alongside technological development, manufacturing capacity, regulatory processes, and commercial strategy.

It is also important to distinguish between a medicine’s approved indications. Authorization for one therapeutic purpose does not automatically permit marketing for another; the approved indications must be verified for each product.

What does this mean for the pharmaceutical industry?

The semaglutide case illustrates how changes in patent protection can reshape competition in a commercially significant market.

For manufacturers seeking to enter the sector, the end of exclusivity may create opportunities for product development and expansion. Companies already operating in the market may need to adjust their portfolios, differentiation, distribution, and competitive positioning.

The shift also highlights the importance of monitoring court decisions, patent terms and regulatory proceedings in a coordinated manner. An opportunity identified through intellectual property analysis must be assessed against the technical, legal and commercial conditions required to bring it to market.

Brazil’s semaglutide market therefore demonstrates that patent expiry is an important milestone, but not the end of strategic analysis. Assessing the protection landscape, understanding regulatory requirements, and planning market entry can be decisive for pharmaceutical companies competing in this segment.

The expansion of the digital economy is changing how companies access and use data, technological systems and digital platforms. As these resources become increasingly important to innovation and business development, access, interoperability and intellectual property are becoming closely connected.

For technology companies, understanding the conditions under which data, systems and digital assets can be accessed and used is increasingly relevant to product development, partnerships, licensing and intellectual property strategies.

Access and innovation in the digital economy

Access to data and technological resources can be essential for companies developing new products, services and digital solutions.

At the same time, access does not necessarily mean unrestricted use. Companies must consider issues involving data protection, contractual restrictions, security and the intellectual property rights associated with the technologies and information involved.

This creates an important balance between enabling access and protecting investments, rights and strategic assets.

Interoperability between systems

One of the central issues in the digital environment is interoperability — the ability of different systems, platforms and technologies to communicate and operate with one another.

For businesses, interoperability can facilitate:

• integration between platforms and technological systems;
• development of new products and services;
• broader use of data and digital resources;
• partnerships between technology providers;
• innovation across different digital environments.

However, access to systems and technologies can also involve intellectual property considerations, particularly when companies rely on technologies, software or platforms developed and controlled by third parties.

Data, artificial intelligence and intellectual property

The growth of artificial intelligence adds another layer to the discussion.

AI systems can depend on large volumes of data for training, analysis and the development of new applications. This raises questions about who can access specific information, under which conditions, and for what purposes.

Companies developing AI-based technologies may therefore need to consider:

• what data can be accessed and used;
• what rights apply to that information;
• whether contractual or legal restrictions exist;
• how data can be shared with third parties;
• how confidential information and intellectual property assets should be protected.

These considerations can influence both the development of new technologies and the way companies structure their innovation strategies.

Digital platforms and intellectual property

The discussion about access also has direct implications for intellectual property.

Software, databases, algorithms, digital content, trademarks and other technological assets may be subject to different forms of legal protection. Their use, integration and sharing therefore need to take into account the rights associated with those assets.

For companies operating in technology-intensive markets, these issues can affect decisions involving:

• technology licensing;
• partnerships and integrations;
• access to third-party platforms;
• information sharing;
• protection of proprietary technologies;
• management of intellectual property portfolios.

The challenge is to establish conditions that allow technologies and businesses to interact while preserving the rights and investments associated with digital assets.

Access and competition in digital markets

The way access to data, platforms and technological resources is structured can also affect competition.

When certain companies control essential digital infrastructure, data or technological resources, other businesses may face barriers when developing products or services that depend on them.

At the same time, access mechanisms need to consider the investments made by technology providers, intellectual property rights, information security, and the risk of unauthorized use.

This makes access an issue that goes beyond technology itself. It can also influence business models, innovation strategies and the management of intangible assets.

What technology companies should consider

As digital technologies become increasingly interconnected, companies may need to evaluate not only what they create, but also the technological and legal environment in which their products and assets operate.

For businesses developing or adopting new technologies, this may involve assessing:

• ownership and protection of intellectual property assets;
• rights associated with data and digital content;
• licensing and technology-sharing arrangements;
• interoperability requirements;
• contractual restrictions on access and use;
• protection of confidential and strategic information.

Understanding these aspects early can help companies structure their innovation and intellectual property strategies more effectively.

Intellectual property in the digital environment

Brazil has formalized the Mercosur-European Free Trade Association (EFTA) free trade agreement, covering Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. In addition to establishing new conditions for trade in goods and services, the agreement includes specific commitments concerning intellectual property (IP).

For Brazilian companies operating or planning to expand internationally, the IP provisions add a strategic consideration when entering and protecting assets in the European markets covered by the agreement.

Intellectual property is part of the trade agreement

The agreement’s intellectual property chapter establishes commitments concerning several areas of protection, including:

• Patents;
• Trademarks;
• Industrial designs;
• Copyright;
• Geographical indications;
• IP enforcement and rights protection.

Including these areas in a trade agreement reinforces the strategic role of intellectual property in economic relations between Mercosur and EFTA countries.

For companies developing technologies, brands, products or other IP assets, international expansion requires consideration not only of the target market, but also of the rules governing the protection and enforcement of those assets.

63 Brazilian geographical indications to receive protection

One of the agreement’s key provisions is the protection of 63 Brazilian geographical indications in EFTA countries.

Geographical indications link specific products to a particular geographic origin and can represent a relevant asset for industries whose products derive value from their territory of production and associated reputation.

The agreement’s protections provide an additional mechanism for safeguarding these assets in covered markets, particularly for Brazilian products whose geographic origin is part of their commercial differentiation.

Implications for internationally active companies

New trade opportunities also increase the importance of intellectual property planning.

Brazilian companies considering expansion into EFTA markets may need to assess issues such as:

• trademark protection before international expansion;
• patent filing strategies in foreign jurisdictions;
• industrial design protection;
• identification of intangible assets relevant to internationalization;
• available mechanisms for enforcing IP rights;
• differences between Brazilian and foreign IP systems.

In this context, intellectual property becomes more than a legal step taken after a business decision. It becomes part of the planning process for international expansion.

Trade and intellectual property

The inclusion of a dedicated IP chapter illustrates the increasingly close relationship between international trade and intangible asset protection.

As economies become more dependent on technology, brands, knowledge, and innovation, protecting these assets across jurisdictions can become an important component of international business strategy.

The Mercosur-EFTA agreement therefore creates a new environment for Brazilian companies seeking to expand into EFTA markets, particularly those whose competitiveness depends on intellectual property assets.

Implementation will be gradual

The agreement will enter into force gradually for Brazil. According to the Brazilian government, implementation begins with Iceland on October 1, 2026, followed by Norway on November 1, 2026.

This gradual rollout makes it important for companies to monitor the specific rules in each market and the opportunities that arise from the new trade framework.

For businesses planning operations in these countries, the development also highlights the importance of reviewing their intellectual property portfolios and protection strategies in target markets in advance.

IP as part of internationalization strategy

The Mercosur-EFTA agreement illustrates how intellectual property is becoming increasingly integrated into international trade negotiations.

For Brazilian companies, entering new markets involves not only export and business opportunities, but also the need to identify, protect and manage intangible assets across jurisdictions.

Assessing these issues in advance can support a more structured internationalization strategy, particularly in industries where brands, technology, innovation, and product origin represent a significant portion of business value.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence is changing how companies generate, organize, and use knowledge. In this context, the ability to connect data and foster collaboration across different teams and systems may become increasingly important compared with simply concentrating information within isolated structures.

The shift reflects a broader change in data management. For years, organizations invested in centralizing information to improve control, security, and governance. As AI adoption expands, however, data value is increasingly tied to the ability to combine and apply it across contexts.

From centralization to integration

Traditional data management models often concentrate information within specific systems or organizational structures. While this can facilitate control, it can also create barriers between departments and limit access to knowledge generated within the organization.

Artificial intelligence increases the need for integration because its outputs depend largely on the availability of relevant information and the ability to connect different data sources.

In this environment, collaboration involves not only people, but also systems, databases, and AI tools.

Isolated data can limit innovation potential

A key point is that data’s value lies not only in its existence, but also in its ability to connect with other information.

When data remains confined to separate departments, platforms, or systems, part of an organization’s knowledge may remain fragmented.

Integration can help identify relationships between datasets that may not become visible when information is analyzed separately.

For innovation-driven companies, this can support the ability to:

• Identify patterns;
• Combine information from different business areas;
• Support decision-making;
• Develop new products and services;
• Automate processes;
• Turn data into actionable knowledge.

AI requires new forms of collaboration

Artificial intelligence is also changing the relationship between professionals and technology. Tools that can process large volumes of information can support different stages of business processes, but they depend on reliable data and sufficient context to interpret their outputs.

Collaboration therefore becomes more than an organizational principle; it becomes part of the infrastructure supporting innovation.

Different teams can contribute data, specialized knowledge, and distinct perspectives, while AI systems help connect and process this information.

This creates a structure that is less dependent on a single point where organizational knowledge is concentrated.

Governance remains essential

Greater data integration does not eliminate the need for governance. On the contrary, the broader the flow of information across systems and teams, the greater the need for clear rules governing access, use, and protection.

For organizations using AI, this may involve establishing mechanisms to determine:

• Who can access specific datasets;
• How information may be used;
• Which data can be shared across systems;
• How strategic information should be protected;
• How data quality and traceability can be maintained.

Collaboration, therefore, does not mean the absence of control. The challenge is to establish structures that allow organizations to share information securely and systematically while maintaining appropriate governance.

Implications for innovation and intellectual property

The discussion also has implications for intangible asset management. In knowledge-intensive businesses, data, software, processes, technical information and research outputs can contribute to the creation of new intellectual property assets.

When different teams collaborate and share information, organizations may be better positioned to identify connections between technical knowledge, research and innovation opportunities.

Data management therefore becomes part of a broader discussion around innovation and intellectual property strategy.

The ability to identify, protect, and appropriately commercialize the results of these processes can matter for companies whose value creation depends heavily on technology and knowledge.

A new model for a data-driven economy

The expansion of artificial intelligence is creating a new environment for data management. Rather than simply accumulating information, organizations increasingly need mechanisms to connect, interpret, and turn data into practical applications.

In this context, collaboration between people, systems and databases becomes an important component of knowledge creation.

For companies seeking to innovate, the challenge is not simply to possess large volumes of data, but to create the conditions for using that information in an integrated, strategic, and well-governed manner.

The launch of the iPhone Duo, Apple’s first foldable smartphone, marks the company’s entry into a device category already explored by several manufacturers. Beyond introducing a new product format, the launch also highlights the connection between technology research, patents, and product development.

Apple’s work on technologies related to foldable displays dates back to 2015, when the company’s engineers were already researching ways to enable different display layers to move with the folding mechanism without compromising durability.

The gap between early technology filings and commercial deployment illustrates a recurring feature of complex technology development: intellectual property protection may precede commercial application by several years.

A technology developed over many years

In 2015, Apple was already researching ways to address a key technical challenge of foldable displays: enabling the different layers of a screen to follow the folding motion without sustaining damage.

The challenge stems from the display’s physical structure. Different layers travel slightly different distances as the device folds, potentially concentrating stress within the assembly and affecting durability.

The research conducted during that period preceded the commercial arrival of the first foldable smartphones by several years and ultimately shaped the technological trajectory leading to Apple’s own foldable device.

From intellectual property to commercial application

The case illustrates the potential gap between protecting a technology and bringing it to market.

In highly complex technological fields, a solution may go through multiple stages before becoming a commercial product, including research, development, testing and technical refinement.

Intellectual property can play a strategic role throughout this process by protecting technological solutions and providing a basis for their future commercial exploitation.

The iPhone Duo’s development therefore illustrates that a technology protected through intellectual property does not necessarily reach consumers immediately. Years of development and technological evolution may separate a solution’s creation from its implementation in a commercial product.

The iPhone Duo reaches the market

Apple launched the iPhone Duo as its first foldable iPhone, eleven years after the technological development described in the report began.

The device starts at US$1,999 in the United States. In Brazil, the entry-level model was announced at approximately R$21,999.

From an intellectual property perspective, however, the more relevant aspect is not the product’s price but the development cycle connecting research, technology protection, and commercialization.

Patents as part of long-term innovation cycles

Apple’s foldable iPhone trajectory shows how research and development investments can precede a product launch by many years.

For technology companies, this period may involve successive generations of solutions, technical improvements and new applications for technologies originally developed in different contexts.

Intellectual property can therefore form part of a strategy that accompanies technological development from its early stages through to potential commercial application.

The case also highlights the importance of monitoring protected technologies and their evolution over time. A patent may represent not only a solution already available in the market, but also part of an innovation process whose commercial impact may emerge years later.

The expiration of semaglutide’s patent protection in Brazil in March 2026 opened the market to new products and accelerated activity among pharmaceutical companies developing medicines based on the active ingredient. Since May, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) has approved more synthetic semaglutide products.

According to a report published by VEJA, more than ten injectable semaglutide medicines have received Anvisa approval, including generic and similar medicines. The movement is expanding competition in a segment previously dominated by biological reference products.

New trademarks enter the market

On July 29, Anvisa approved five new synthetic semaglutide products: Owozy, Seemasun, Zempneo, Semavy and Orsema. They joined Ozivy, developed by EMS and registered in May as the first synthetic semaglutide product approved as an analogue of the biological reference product.

The trademarks identified by VEJA also include products approved later under different regulatory categories:

• Ozivy (EMS): the first synthetic semaglutide version registered in Brazil;
• Owozy (Ávita Care/Biolab/Sandoz): approved by Anvisa in July;
• Seemasun (Sun Farmacêutica do Brasil): approved in July;
• Zempneo (Brainfarma): approved in July;
• Semavy (Mantecorp/Hypera Pharma): approved in July;
• Orsema (Ranbaxy Farmacêutica): approved in July;
• Semaclique (Germed/EMS): a similar version of Ozivy, also approved as a generic;
• Yluméc (EMS): approved as a similar medicine in August.

The approvals are part of a broader regulatory review of GLP-1 receptor agonists. According to Anvisa, 68% of applications for injectable medicines intended to treat obesity and diabetes are for synthetic products.

Synthetic and biological semaglutide: what is the difference?

The new products are not simply copies of the biological reference medicine.

Recently approved products use chemically synthesized semaglutide, while medicines such as Ozempic and Wegovy use biologically derived semaglutide. Anvisa classifies Ozivy, for example, as a new medicine and synthetic analogue of a biological product, rather than a generic version of Ozempic.

The distinction relates to how the active ingredient is produced:

• Biological semaglutide: produced through biotechnological processes;
• Synthetic semaglutide: produced through chemical synthesis.

According to Anvisa, evaluating synthetic semaglutide analogues presents technical challenges because these products combine characteristics associated with both synthetic and biological medicines.

Generics and similar medicines enter the market

The market opening also involves different regulatory categories.

According to VEJA, Ozivy and Semaclique have been authorized for sale as generic medicines, while other products have been registered as similar medicines.

For generics, Brazilian regulation requires the medicine to have the same active ingredient and efficacy as the reference product, without using a proprietary brand name. Similar medicines, by contrast, are marketed under their own commercial names and registered against a reference product.

The diversification of regulatory categories increases the number of companies able to compete in the segment and creates a different market structure from the one that existed during the patent protection period.

Patent expiration accelerates new applications

The expiration of semaglutide’s patent on March 20, 2026, was one factor behind the increase in regulatory applications.

Anvisa reported that, since August 2025, it has prioritized the review of medicines containing semaglutide and liraglutide following a request from Brazil’s Ministry of Health and concerns about domestic supply, within the framework of the Health Economic-Industrial Complex.

Of the 24 synthetic and biological medicines included in the priority review program, 11 had completed the assessment, resulting in six approvals as of July 2026.

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office released three additional editions of its Intellectual Property Guide for Businesses on August 26, 2026. With the new publications, the collection now includes nine practical guides designed to support businesses in the strategic use and management of intellectual property.

The series was developed in partnership with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). The original publications were adapted by BPTO for the Brazilian context, providing businesses with guidance on how to understand and manage their intellectual property assets.

The three new guides focus on international operations, the integration of intellectual property into corporate strategy, and the identification and management of IP-related risks.

Guide 7: Managing intellectual property in international operations

Guide 7: How to Manage Your Intellectual Property When Operating Internationally addresses issues related to the protection and management of intellectual property assets outside Brazil.

The publication covers topics such as:

• How intellectual property laws operate in foreign jurisdictions;
• Expanding IP protection to international markets;
• Enforcing rights outside Brazil;
• Available support channels for companies operating internationally.

These issues become increasingly relevant as companies expand into new markets and need to consider the specific characteristics of intellectual property systems in different jurisdictions.

Guide 8: Integrating intellectual property into business strategy

Guide 8: Enabling Commercial Success Through Your Intellectual Property Strategy focuses on incorporating intellectual property into corporate planning and business strategy.

The guide addresses:

• The role of intellectual property in corporate strategy;
• The stages involved in planning an IP strategy;
• Developing and structuring that strategy;
• Practical implementation;
• Sources of support available to businesses.

The publication highlights how intellectual property can be incorporated into decision-making processes related to business development and management.

Guide 9: managing and reducing intellectual property risks

Guide 9: How to Manage and Reduce Intellectual Property Risks in Your Business focuses on managing and reducing intellectual property risks in your business.

The publication addresses:

• Risks associated with intellectual property assets;
• Ways to reduce exposure to third-party rights;
• Procedures to consider when facing allegations of infringement;
• Available guidance and support channels.

Preventive risk management can be particularly relevant for companies that develop, use or commercialize technologies, trademarks, and other intangible assets.

The collection now includes nine practical guides

With the release of the three new publications, the Intellectual Property Guide for Businesses series now comprises nine practical guides.

The expanded collection covers different aspects of intellectual property management, including protection, strategy, internationalization and risk management.

Together, the guides provide resources for businesses seeking to incorporate intellectual property considerations into broader management and strategic planning processes, particularly in areas involving international expansion, technology development and intangible assets.

Software registrations in Brazil are accelerating in 2026, reflecting the growing role of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in business activities. By August, Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) had recorded 6,017 software registration filings, approaching the 7,232 registrations recorded during the whole of 2025.

During the first half of 2026 alone, filings increased by 75% compared with the same period of the previous year. BPTO projects that software registrations will continue to grow at an average annual rate of 15.6% between 2026 and 2030.

Artificial intelligence is already becoming a significant component of this growth.

AI-related software gains relevance

Data from BPTO show the increasing presence of artificial intelligence among software registration filings.

In 2025:

• 1,372 filings, representing 19% of the total, were related to artificial intelligence.

Based on data collected through May 2026:

• 639 registrations were related to AI;
• Out of 3,040 filings analyzed during the period.

The figures illustrate the growing role of artificial intelligence in software development and reflect the expanding strategic importance of digital technologies across different business activities.

Software becomes a strategic business asset

According to Érica Guimarães Correia, Head of BPTO’s Division of Computer Programs and Integrated Circuit Topographies, software is no longer limited to an administrative support function.

It now plays a direct role in areas such as:

• Process automation;
• Operational efficiency;
• Customer experience;
• Cost reduction;
• Data analysis;
• Decision-making;
• Business scalability.

In some business models, the software itself is the product or service offered by the company.

This shift increases the importance of identifying, managing, and protecting technology assets developed by businesses.

How software protection works in Brazil

In Brazil, computer programs are protected under copyright law rather than patent law.

The registration system administered by BPTO concerns the program’s source code. Registration is not required for copyright protection, but a registration certificate may serve as evidence of authorship in the event of a dispute.

It may also be relevant in business and legal contexts involving:

• Public procurement processes;
• Financing;
• Licensing;
• Technology transfer;
• Negotiations and agreements involving the exploitation of software.

Software registration can therefore form part of a broader strategy for managing intangible assets and documenting rights related to technologies developed by companies and professionals.

AI cannot be recognized as an author of software

The growing use of artificial intelligence also raises questions about authorship.

According to the BPTO specialist, under the rules currently applicable in Brazil, authorship remains linked to a natural person, since artificial intelligence is considered a tool and cannot claim authorship.

Brazilian copyright legislation establishes that the author is the natural person responsible for the creation.

The distinction between author and right holder is also particularly relevant in a corporate environment:

• The author is the natural person responsible for creating the software;
• The right holder may be either a natural person or a legal entity and holds the economic rights associated with the use and commercial exploitation of the program.

Where a developer is hired to conduct software research and development as part of their employment duties, the developer remains the author. At the same time, the company may hold the corresponding economic rights.

Code reproduction and the challenges of AI-generated content

Another issue concerns situations in which artificial intelligence tools generate code based on existing content.

According to the BPTO representative, a potential dispute may involve comparing source codes to determine whether protected content has been reproduced, particularly when the reproduced portion represents a significant or distinctive element of the software.

BPTO does not assess the merits of potential plagiarism or code reproduction.

In the event of a legal dispute, the matter may be examined by the Brazilian courts, potentially with technical analysis carried out by a court-appointed expert.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into software development, questions surrounding authorship, ownership, and the use of protected content are becoming increasingly relevant to technology and intellectual property strategies.

Software protection in an increasingly technology-driven economy

The growth in software registration filings and the expanding presence of artificial intelligence-related technologies reflect a broader shift in the role of digital assets within companies.

As software becomes more directly connected to value creation, automation, and the delivery of products and services, issues such as authorship, ownership, and source code protection become increasingly relevant to the management of intangible assets.

These issues were discussed during a webinar held by Assespro-PR on August 11, focusing on intellectual property applied to software and the implications of artificial intelligence for technologies developed by companies.

Businesses and entrepreneurs who rely on trademark registration for their commercial activities have a new opportunity to request priority examination from the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO).

Since September 1, 2026, BPTO has resumed issuing the payment guide required for priority examination requests in categories that had been temporarily unavailable.

The current application window will remain open until December 31, 2026, as part of the second four-month period of Phase II of the pilot project established under BPTO/PR Normative Ordinance No. 67/2026.

1,500 slots available in the second period

Normative Ordinance No. 67/2026 divided 3,000 requests under Phase II of the pilot project into two four-month periods, with 1,500 slots allocated to each period.

The first period ran from May 1 to August 31 and reached its available capacity, resulting in the temporary suspension of the relevant payment guide.

The second period began on September 1 and will remain open until December 31, 2026.

The current allocation includes:

• 1,500 available slots;
• A shared quota covering 13 priority examination categories established under BPTO/PR Normative Ordinance No. 66/2026;
• A minimum reservation of 100 slots for each category;
• A limit of ten requests per applicant.

The current period therefore represents the remaining opportunity for applicants seeking to use one of these priority examination mechanisms in 2026.

Priority examination does not eliminate the opposition period

Priority examination may accelerate the examination stage of a trademark application, but it does not remove other procedural steps required under Brazil’s trademark system.

Under Article 84-L of BPTO/PR Ordinance No. 27/2025, priority processing takes place after the formal examination stage and the expiration of the opposition period.

Under Law No. 9,279/96, third parties have 60 days from the publication of the trademark application to file an opposition.

Incomplete documentation may result in the loss of a priority slot

The documentation submitted with the priority examination request is another relevant factor.

According to attorney Vinicius Augusto Del Rio, slots are allocated in the order in which requests are filed, and applications are assessed based on the evidence submitted with the request.

If the documentation does not fully demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the applicable priority category, the request may be denied after the slot has already been used.

Article 84-N of INPI/PR Ordinance No. 27/2025 provides that decisions concerning priority examination requests are not subject to appeal. In such cases, a new request may be submitted with the appropriate documentation, subject to the availability of slots at that time.

Deadline requires attention to procedural requirements

The resumption of the payment guide provides a new window for applicants seeking to accelerate the examination of trademark applications in Brazil during 2026.

However, access to the available quota does not remove the need to comply with the specific procedural and documentary requirements applicable to each priority examination category.

With the second four-month period running until December 31, 2026, preparing the required documentation before filing remains an important step for applicants seeking to make use of the priority examination system.

Brazil and South Korea are expanding cooperation across strategic areas, including trade, investment, technological development and intellectual property. The relationship gained further momentum following South Korean President Lee Jae-myung’s state visit to Brazil and renewed efforts to advance discussions on a potential trade agreement between Mercosur and South Korea.

In the field of intellectual property, the bilateral relationship already includes institutional cooperation mechanisms between the countries’ industrial property authorities. At the same time, South Korean companies are increasing their presence in Brazil’s patent and trademark system.

Trade negotiations and strategic cooperation

Discussions surrounding a potential trade agreement between Mercosur and South Korea cover several areas relevant to economic integration, including:

• Trade in goods and services;
• Investment;
• E-commerce;
• Intellectual property.

The growing relationship comes at a time of increasing global demand for advanced technologies and stronger supply chains connected to the digital economy and the energy transition.

South Korea has a strong industrial presence in sectors such as:

• Semiconductors;
• Rechargeable batteries;
• Electric vehicles;
• Electronics.

Brazil, meanwhile, holds significant reserves of rare earth elements used in a wide range of technologies, including information and communication technologies, 5G networks, the Internet of Things, semiconductors, biotechnology, nanotechnology and metrology.

Institutional cooperation in intellectual property

Brazil and South Korea already maintain specific cooperation mechanisms in the field of industrial property.

In 2024, Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) and South Korea established a Memorandum of Understanding on Industrial Property, providing for training initiatives and exchanges of knowledge and experience between the institutions.

BPTO also maintains a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) agreement with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO).

The mechanism is intended to accelerate the examination of certain patent applications in both jurisdictions, strengthening cooperation between the two industrial property systems.

Intellectual property and international business

The relationship also involves initiatives designed to support companies operating in international markets.

BPTO has developed an Intellectual Property Guide for Exporters, designed to help Brazilian companies identify and protect their intellectual property assets abroad.

The guide includes information on South Korea’s intellectual property system, helping Brazilian exporters understand local requirements and develop appropriate protection strategies for their intangible assets.

South Korean companies increase their presence in Brazil

Data for 2025 point to growing interest from South Korean companies in the Brazilian market.

According to INPI rankings, South Korea surpassed Japan to become the third-largest country of origin for patent applications filed by non-residents in Brazil, accounting for approximately 9% of the applications included in the ranking.

South Korea also holds a prominent position in trademark activity. Among the countries of origin of non-resident applicants mentioned in the ranking, it ranks only behind the United States.

These figures highlight the growing use of Brazil’s intellectual property system by South Korean companies and reinforce the country’s relevance as a market for international investment and expansion.

Technology, intangible assets and future opportunities

Closer ties between Brazil and South Korea create opportunities for cooperation between two economies with distinct industrial and technological capabilities.

South Korea brings a well-established industrial base in technology-intensive sectors, while Brazil combines natural resources, a large consumer market and innovation capabilities across different industries.

Within this context, intellectual property can support:

• Joint technological development;
• Investment initiatives;
• Technology transfer;
• The development of new value chains;
• The protection and commercialization of intangible assets.

Further bilateral cooperation and progress in Mercosur–South Korea negotiations could therefore expand not only trade flows, but also the exchange of knowledge, technology and intellectual assets.