Arquivos do Mês: February 2026

On Monday (9), Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies approved, by 337 votes to 19, an urgent procedure for a bill that allows the compulsory licensing of patents related to Mounjaro and Zepbound. The approval places the proposal on a fast-track, bypassing committee review and moving directly to a plenary vote.

The medications are used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity, and the bill seeks to amend Brazil’s intellectual property framework to allow compulsory licenses for public-interest purposes.

Rationale behind the proposal

According to the bill’s justification, the high market prices of these drugs prevent their large-scale adoption, particularly in public health policies. The author argues that the current cost structure is incompatible with mass treatment strategies in a country with more than 200 million inhabitants, many of whom could benefit from such therapies.

The proposal also highlights that Brazil’s public healthcare system (SUS) is unable to absorb these medicines due to their elevated cost.

Parallel initiative in the Senate

A similar initiative is currently under discussion in the Brazilian Senate. The bill proposes a temporary suspension of the tirzepatide patent, the active ingredient in Mounjaro, on public-interest grounds. The proposal includes provisions for local manufacturing and expanded access to obesity treatment within the public healthcare system.

IP implications

These legislative initiatives revive discussions on the balance between patent protection and public health policies, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. If approved, compulsory licensing measures may significantly impact patent strategies, pricing models, technology transfer agreements, and investment decisions in Brazil.

On January 22, 2026, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) released an updated version of its Industrial Designs Manual, introducing important changes to the examination of priority claims in industrial design applications.

The key change allows the BPTO to declare a loss of priority without issuing a prior office action in certain situations, marking a shift from prior administrative practice.

Cases where priority may be lost without prior action

Under the updated guidelines, priority may be automatically lost when:

• the priority document contains a design unrelated to the Brazilian application, and the correct document is not submitted within 90 days;
• a valid priority document, including figures, application number, and filing date in the country of origin, is not submitted within the 90-day statutory deadline; or
• the figures in the Brazilian application do not fully correspond to those in the priority document.

Situations where an office action still applies

The BPTO will continue to issue office actions in cases such as:

• illegible or incomplete priority documents;
• discrepancies between the applicants or owners listed in the Brazilian filing and the priority document; or
• poor-quality figures that prevent proper comparison between the claimed design and the priority filing.

Legal basis and practical impact

The update aligns the Manual with the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996), particularly Articles 16 and 99. It reflects the conclusions of Legal Opinion No. 00016/2023, which emphasizes strict compliance with administrative deadlines.

While the new approach is more stringent, applicants’ right to appeal remains fully preserved.

Overall, the changes aim to improve exam efficiency, eliminate procedural inconsistencies, and enhance legal certainty and predictability for industrial design applicants in Brazil.

Brazil and the European Union have announced the mutual recognition of the equivalence of their personal data protection frameworks, creating a trusted legal basis for cross-border data transfers between the two jurisdictions.

The decision acknowledges that both systems ensure high and reliable standards of privacy protection, providing legal certainty for international data flows related to economic activities, digital services, scientific cooperation, and global platform operations.

From a regulatory perspective, the agreement is expected to reduce compliance burdens, enhance legal predictability, and foster digital trade and investment between Brazil and the EU. Government officials emphasized that strong data protection standards are not obstacles to innovation, but rather a cornerstone of a sustainable and trustworthy digital economy.

The measure also highlights the growing alignment between Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD) and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a key issue for companies handling personal data across borders.

Bill No. 512/25, currently under review by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, proposes amendments to the Brazilian Industrial Property Law to protect the use of trademarks that have been used continuously and in good faith over time, even without formal registration.

Under the proposal, trademark coexistence may be allowed when:

• the mark has been used for a prolonged period without opposition;
• there is a significant geographic distance between the businesses;
• the registered trademark owner failed to act promptly;
• no financial harm or likelihood of consumer confusion is demonstrated.

according to the author of the text, Congressman Jonas Donizette, the measure aims to enhance legal certainty for micro and small businesses, which often develop well-established local brands but later face claims from trademark owners who do not operate in the same region.

The bill also references recent case law from the São Paulo Court of Appeals (TJSP), which allowed the coexistence of identical trademarks used by pizzerias in different cities, based on over 30 years of good-faith use and the trademark owner’s delay in enforcing its rights.

If enacted, the proposal may significantly influence trademark enforcement strategies in Brazil, particularly in disputes involving prior use, good faith, and the territorial scope of trademark rights.

The bill is subject to conclusive review by the Industry, Commerce and Services Committee and the Constitution and Justice Committee.