The Relevance of Regional Specificities of Intellectual Property Regulations for Pharmaceutical Industries: Brazilian Law Changes That Immediately Affected Crucial US-Pharmaceutical Patents with Correspondents in Brazil

Main Article Content

Tatiana Duque Martins Ertner de Almeida Thalita Paes Diericon Cordeiro Tales Martins

Abstract

In May, 2021, the single section of title 40 of the Brazilian industrial property act (LPI 9.279/1996), which guaranteed a minimum term of 10 years to a granted patent was found unconstitutional by a decision on the Direct Act of Unconstitutionality #5529/DF (ADI5529/DF). It resulted in crucial and immediate effects, especially in Brazilian pharmaceutical market, affecting the and the international interests of pharmaceutical companies in the Brazilian market. Such law changes, although being a national matter, but having international consequences must be under watch worldwide, since they are not arbitrary, but the result of the power that each country has to exert their legal freedom. Therefore, considering the information available on patent databases, this work evidences such effects, evaluating American pharmaceutical patents with correspondents in Brazil that had been benefiting from a particular provision of the Brazilian intellectual property law, the single section of title 40, which provide a minimum term to granted patents that took too long to be evaluated and should be an exception provision. From those data, we have found that 75% of those patents were affected in expressive ways, for instance, 38% of them immediately expired, and 33% had their terms drastically shortened. This work also shows that only 32% of those patents were not affected by the decision of unconstitutionality of single section of title 40 of the Brazilian law. This evidences a severe impact on the ways the national pharmaceutical companies will work, especially because this change immediately open to them several opportunities to explore drugs that, until the day before the decision, were in force and now are at public domain. However, they are not prepared to innovate and it may not be able to supply the market. On the other hand, multinational companies may withdraw from the market, since that are no longer working under a monopoly. The information disclosed in this work show that it will severely affect the Brazilian pharmaceutical market from now on and draws the attention to the need of companies to be aware of all national laws regarding to the market of interest.

Keywords: pharmaceutical patents, ADI5529/DF, section of title 40, Industrial Property Brazilian Act, Brazilian pharmaceutical industry

Article Details

How to Cite
ERTNER DE ALMEIDA, Tatiana Duque Martins et al. The Relevance of Regional Specificities of Intellectual Property Regulations for Pharmaceutical Industries: Brazilian Law Changes That Immediately Affected Crucial US-Pharmaceutical Patents with Correspondents in Brazil. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 6, june 2023. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/3830>. Date accessed: 15 may 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v11i6.3830.
Section
Research Articles

References

1 Bahia CJA, Abujamra ACP. Monopoly, competition in intellectual property, and access to medicines flexibilization the brazilian state democratic socialist: realization of the right to health?". Proceedings of XVIII Congresso Nacional do CONPEDI. São Paulo/SP. 2009; p. 9732-9750. http://www.publicadireito.com.br/conpedi/manaus/arquivos/Anais/sao_paulo/1922.pdf
2 TRF2. 2ª Turma Especializada. Des. Guilherme Diefenthaler. AC 0020685-65.2002.4.02.0000. [judged in 27/09/2005]
3 TRF2. 2ª TURMA ESPECIALIZADA. Vv. Des. André Fontes. AC 0038546-38.2012.4.02.5101. [judged in 03/02/2017]
4Federative republic of Brazil Constitution. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
5 a. TRIPS — Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm b. World Trade Organization. Intellectual Property: Least Developed Countries. Responding to least developed countries’ special needs in intellectual property. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ldc_e.htm
6 Paes TDM, Aguiar LF, Martins TD. Identification of US-pharmaceutical patents expiring between 2018 and 2022 and their effect on the Brazilian domestic market. World Pat. Inf. 2020; 63: 101999. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2020.101999
7Brazilian Industrial Property Law 9279/1996. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9279.htm
8 Dubeux RR. Um balanço da evolução recente das leis de patentes no Brasil: os efeitos do Acordo TRIPS, Revista Jus Navigandi. ISSN 1518-4862. https://jus.com.br/artigos/17269/um-balanco-da-evolucao-recente-das-leis-de-patentes-no-brasil-os-efeitos-do-acordo-trips [Accessed on May 2019]
9 Barbosa DB. A inexplicável política pública por trás do parágrafo único do art. 40 da Lei de Propriedade Industrial. 2013. Page. http://www.denisbarbosa.addr.com/arquivos/200/propriedade/inexplicavel_politica_publica.pdf. [Accessed on May, 2019]
10 R.R. Almeida. O exame de mérito das patentes. Revista Facto. ABIFINA. 6th Edition. 03 2007. http://www.abifina.org.br/revista_facto_materia.php?id=185 [accessed on May 2019]
11 Mercadante E, Hasenclever L, Paranhos J. Um estudo da tramitação de patentes farmacêuticas concedidas pelo INPI pós-TRIPS. II Encontro Nacional de Economia Industrial e Inovação In: São Paulo, Blucher; 2017; 4(2): 776-791. [DOI: 10.5151/enei2017-43]
12 Article 66.1 of TRIPS Agreement. Intellectual Property: Least Developed Countries. Responding to least developed countries’ special needs in intellectual property. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ldc_e.htm
13 Braga CP. Trade-Related intellectual Property Issues: The Uruguay Round Agreement and its Economic Implications, in W. Martin and A. Winters (eds.). The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries Chapter 12. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1996; 341- 367.
14 El-Said M. The Road from TRIPS-Minus, to TRIPS, to TRIPS-Plus: Implications of IPRs for the Arab World. J. World Intellect. Prop. 2005; 8:53-65.
15 Articles 65-66 of TRIPS Agreement. Intellectual Property: Least Developed Countries. Responding to least developed countries’ special needs in intellectual property. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ldc_e.htm
16 Collier R. Drug patents: the evergreening problem. CMAJ. 2013; 185(9): E385-E386. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4466
17 Abbas MZ. Evergreening of pharmaceutical patents: A blithe disregard for the rationale of the patent system. J. Generic Med.: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector. 2019;15(2):53-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741134319848797
18 Kumar A, Nanda A. Ever-greening in Pharmaceuticals: Strategies, Consequences and Provisions for Prevention in USA, EU, India and Other Countries. Pharm Regul Aff. 2017; 6(1): 1000185 (6p). DOI: 10.4172/2167-7689.1000185
19 Paes T. Vulnerabilidades do sistema patentário brasileiro e o § único do Art. 40 da LPI. Published in 21/09/20. https://www.patentabilit.com.br/post/art-40-único-da-lpi-uso-estratégico-das-vulnerabilidades-do-sistema-de-patentes-brasileiro
20 Martins T. STF julga inconstitucional extensão de prazo de patentes, com efeitos retroativos a medicamentos . Published in 13/05/21. https://www.patentabilit.com.br/post/stf-julga-inconstitucional-extensão-de-prazo-de-patentes-com-efeitos-retroativos-a-medicamentos
21 INPI database: https://gru.inpi.gov.br/pePI/jsp/patentes/PatenteSearchBasico.jsp
22 ANVISA database: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/bib