The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program and the Brazilian PTO – Recent Updates

 

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (Brazilian PTO, also known as the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI)), has made two major announcements regarding the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program in Brazil since the beginning of November.

PPH Program with the European Patent Office

On November 7, 2017, the Brazilian PTO published Rule #202/2017 implementing the PPH Pilot Program (Program) with the European Patent Office (EPO).  The hope is that the implementation of the Program will result in faster examination of pending Brazilian patent applications having a counterpart allowed by the EPO.

Logistically, the Program will accept applications belonging to patent families whose earliest application has been filed in the Brazilian PTO or the EPO, or for PCT applications, where either the Brazilian PTO or EPO was used as the Receiving Office.  All applications are eligible with one notable exception.  Specifically, while applications in the field of chemistry or related technologies applied to medicine may be eligible for the Program, drug-related patent applications are specifically excluded.  More specifically, the application must be classified under the International Patent Codes (IPC) listed in the below table to be accepted.  However, applications classified under any of the group of A61K subclass, with the exception of group A61K8, are also excluded from the program.  Generally, IPC group A61K relates to preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes.  Group A61K8 relates to cosmetics or similar toilet preparations.

TECHNICAL AREA IPC CODE
Basic Chemistry A01N, A01P, C05#, C06#, C09B, C09C, C09D, C09F, C09G, C09H, C09J, C09K, C10B, C10C, C10F, C10G, C10H, C10J, C10K, C10L, C10M, C10N, C11B, C11C, C11D, C99Z
Organic and fine chemistry C07B, C07C, C07D, C07F, C07H, C07J, C40B, A61K8¹, A61Q
Polymeric and macromolecular chemistry C08B, C08C, C08F, C08G, C08H, C08L
Medical technologies A61B, A61C, A61D, A61F, A61G, A61H, A61J, A61L, A61M, A61N, H05G

To be accepted in the Brazilian PPH program, an application must:

  1. Have a notification of filing or entry in the national phase in Brazil published by the Official Gazette of the Brazilian PTO;
  2. Already have been published (which can be effected by international publication (such as by a PCT application, if applicable);
  3. Have submitted a request for examination;
  4. Have all annuity fees duly paid;
  5. Have no pending Office Action awaiting response by the Applicant;
  6. Not have been accepted in any other fast-track examination program in Brazil;
  7. Not have been involved in a lawsuit in Brazil; and
  8. Not be a divisional application (except in the situation where the divisional application results from an original parent application due to a rejection due to a lack of unity of invention).

A request for participation in the Program must be made by all the Applicants in electronic form.  In addition to the other documents required by Rule #202/2017, an Applicant must submit, together with the request:

  1. Documents proving that the application meets the requirements of the Program;
  2. A table providing the correspondence between the claims in the Brazilian application and the allowed claims in the European application; and
  3. A copy of any non-patent prior art documents.

The Brazilian PTO will evaluate applications based on the date on which the request is filed.  Any applications that do not meet the requirements will receive an Office Action setting a sixty (60) day period to allow for any irregularities to be corrected or will be otherwise be denied participation in the Program.  Any application denied participation will be examined according to the normal procedures of the Brazilian PTO.  An applicant denied participation in the Program has an opportunity to appeal such a decision within 60 days of receipt of notification of denial.

The Brazilian-EPO PPH Pilot Program will begin on December 1, 2017 and will receive applications for a period of two (2) years.  A maximum of 300 applications will be accepted each year during the two (2) year period (for a total of 600 applications).

Brazil and the Chinese Patent Office 

On November 13, 2017, the Brazilian PTO and the Chinese Patent Office (SIPO, also known as the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China) signed a memorandum of understanding establishing a future PPH Pilot Program (Program) between the two offices.  Much like the Program described above in connection with the EPO, Applicants will be able to request faster examination for a Brazilian patent application whose Chinese counterpart has already been approved.

A rule setting for the requirements for eligibility for the Program is expected to be published in February.

Please continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for further updates on the PPH Pilot Program in Brazil.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Roberto Rodrigues Pinho (https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberto-rodrigues-pinho/)

Understanding Brazil’s Service Guideline #37 for the Examination of Patent Applications Claiming Pharmaceutical Products and Processes

On September 25, 2017, the Director of the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) issued internal guidelines (Orientação de Serviço #37/2017) regarding the procedures to be used by the agency when examining patent applications claiming pharmaceutical products and processes in light of public health (in accordance with Article 229-C of Patent Statute #9,279/96, Resolution RDC #168, of 2017, the Joint Ordinance ANVISA/INPI #001, of 2017, and Ordinance GM/MS #736, of 2014).  According to these guidelines, ANVISA will follow the following procedures when reviewing applications claiming pharmaceutical products and processes.

  1. Upon receipt of a patent application from the Brazilian Patent Office (Instituto National da Propriedade Industrial (INPI)), ANVISA will assess the subject matter of the application to verify compliance with the provisions of Article 229-C of IP Law #9,279/96. Article 229-C provides that pharmaceutical patent applications shall receive a prior approval by ANVISA (often referred to as “prior approval” or “prior consent”). Specifically, Article 229-C provides that: “The grant of patents for pharmaceutical products and processes shall depend upon the prior approval from the National Sanitary Vigilance Agency.” 
  1. Once it is determined that prior approval or prior consent by ANVISA is required, an application is assessed with respect to its (1) health risk; and (2) interest under the drug or pharmaceutical assistance policies within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). 
  1. The health risk of the application is assessed by determining whether the pharmaceutical product or process claimed comprises or results in substances included in List E (which is a list of prohibited plants which may give rise to narcotic and/or psychotropic substances) or List F (a list of substances banned in Brazil) based on Ordinance SVS/MS #344, of 12 May 1998, which relates to plants and substances (including salts and isomers thereof) that are prohibited for use in the country. Applications which do not claim a pharmaceutical product or process that comprise or result in substances included in Lists E or F are not considered to present a health risk.  If the application is considered to present a health risk, ANVISA will deny prior consent or prior approval and return the application to INPI, which will dismiss the application. 
  1. After determination of the absence of health risk, the application is reviewed to determine whether or not the pharmaceutical product or process is of interest to the drug or pharmaceutical assistance policies under SUS. An application is determined to be of interest to the drug policy or pharmaceutical assistance policy under SUS when:
    • The subject matter is related to one of therapeutic applications defined by Ordinance MS/GM #736, of 2014 as listed in Annex I (provided below); or
    • It is related to a product incorporated into SUS (except for drugs that are part of the Basic Component of Pharmaceutical Assistance (CBAF), which is guided by the National List of Essential Medicines (RENAME) in force); or
    • It is related to a product of potential interest to the SUS according to Annex II (provided below).

If the application is of no interest to the healthcare policy, ANVISA will grant prior consent or prior approval and send the application back to INPI for further processing.  However, if an application is determined to be of interest to the drug or pharmaceutical policies under SUS, ANVISA will send the application back to INPI for further processing along with a report providing an analysis of the patentability requirements to be used by INPI during examination.

An important take away is that according to the service guidelines, ANVISA is able to provide an opinion addressing the patentability requirements of applications claiming pharmaceutical products or processes.  Regrettably, this is a continued attempt by ANVISA to try and  work around case law that has clearly established that the agency is not allowed to evaluate the patentability requirements of such applications under Article 229-C.

Annex I 

Viral Diseases (antiviral and antiretroviral diseases)

Neglected diseases:

Dengue

Chagas Disease

Schistosomiasis

Rocky Mountain spotted fever

Filariosis

Leprosy

Leishmaniasis

Malaria

Systemic mycoses

Tuberculosis

Neurodegenerative diseases

Alzheimer’s

Parkinson’s

Immunosuppressants

Rheumatoid arthritis

Transplant rejection

Mental diseases (antipsychotics/anticonvulsants)

Epilepsy

Psychosis / Schizophrenia

Neoplasias / Cancer (Oncology products)

Products obtained by biological routes

Provided that the therapeutic application is included in ordinance GM/MS 736/14

Vaccines and sera

Vaccines of the National Immunization Program

BCG vaccine

Hepatitis B vaccine

Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus Influenza B vaccine

Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine

Polio vaccine (VIP / VOP)

Pneumococcal vaccine (Pneumo 10, PN 23)

Human rotavirus vaccine

Meningococcal C vaccine

Yellow Fever vaccine

Hepatitis A vaccine

Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine

Diphtheria and tetanus vaccine

HPV vaccine

Influenza vaccine

Rabies vaccine

Vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases

Vaccines for neglected diseases

Vaccines for cancer

Hemoderivatives

Plasma concentration of factor VIII

Von Willebrand factor

Prothrombin complex (partially activated or human)

Recombinant activated factor VII concentrate

Plasma and recombinant factor concentrate

Plasma concentration of factor IX

Factor XIII concentrate

Excluded:  Fibrinogen, Tranexamic Acid and Desmopressin Acetate

Annex II

            Roadmap to identify patent applications of potential interest for SUS

  1. The patent application, to be identified as of potential interest to SUS, in addition to complying with Article 6 herein, should also comply with at least one of the following criteria:
    • Be related to a product registered with a sanitary authority of any country or region;
    • Be related to a substance under an active phase II clinical trial or higher, in any country or region, for a therapeutic application of interest to SUS;
    • Be related to high-cost drug that is part of the Specialized Component of Pharmaceutical Assistance (CEAF);
    • Be related to the drug provided in Partnership for Productive Development (PDP) or equivalent;
    • Be related to a request for priority examination made by the Ministry to Health to the INPI;
    • Has been filed with INPI less than six years ago.
  2. The patent application included in item A above may be exempted from a patentability examination for the purposes of supportive data if the application satisfies any of the below:
    • The product has its incorporation into SUS denied by the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies (CONITEC); or
    • The product is excluded from SUS; or
    • The invention is unlikely to be incorporated into SUS after conducting a prospective analysis.

Please continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for further updates on ANVISA and prior approval or consent in Brazil.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Roberto Rodrigues of Licks Attorneys.

 

After Years of Waiting, Your or Your Competitor’s Patent Application May Quickly Issue in Brazil. Are You Ready?

The Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI), also known as the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BRPTO), may soon automatically grant approximately 231,000 currently pending patent applications in an effort to reduce the backlog of unexamined patent applications that have plagued the office for years.  As many of our readers know, the backlog of unexamined applications has resulted in pendency periods on average of at least ten (10) years.  Although expedited examination is available for green technologies, oil and gas technologies (under the patent prosecution highway (PPH), limited pharmaceutical applications, and when an Applicant can demonstrate clear infringement, these measures have failed to put a significant dent in the existing backlog.

In July 2017, the Brazilian government stated that it was considering an emergency measure authorizing INPI to automatically grant approximately 231,000 pending patent applications by 2020.  More information on this measure can be found at the following links:  here, here and here.  Although the announcement of this “automatic” grant has been highly controversial, INPI has implied that it has few, if any other options for dealing with the current backlog. Interestingly, some examiners are threatening to go on strike against the measure.

The emergency measure involves a simplified examination procedure in which INPI would automatically grant any unexamined applications that do not have any outstanding annuity payments due and do not have pre-grant submissions filed by parties against the granting of the patent.  Pharmaceutical applications or divisional applications where the parent application has not yet been examined, are excluded from the measure.

Proposed rules for implementing the new measure were available for public comment until August 31, 2017.  Interestingly, during recent meetings, INPI has suggested that proposals made by local associations that add complexity to the process, such as the possibility of amending claims prior to grant or requesting substantive examination after grant, will likely be disregarded.

While the exact details and the timing of implementation of the measure are unknown, now is the time for Applicants with pending non-pharmaceutical or (certain) divisional applications to be developing a strategy to take advantage of the measure while minimizing any potential risks.  For example, Applicants with products having a short product life span should consider taking full advantage of this emergency measure.

The measure as currently drafted contains an “opt-out” clause in which an Applicant may, within 90 days, request that an application not be automatically granted but instead be subject to regular, substantive examination.  Applicants should strongly consider using the “opt-out” option for applications covering very important inventions and/or if the claims as originally filed do not provide the desired coverage (especially since INPI is likely to disregard any amendments made after the application was filed).  Moreover, Applicants should examine applications of competitors since the measure provides the opportunity for third parties to prevent the automatic granting of an application by the submission of pre-grant submissions with briefs and accompanying prior art.  These pre-grant submissions must be filed before the emergency measure comes into effect.  Moreover, there is no cost for filing the brief before INPI.  .

Please continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for updates on the emergency measure for eliminating the backlog of patent applications in INPI.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Roberto Rodrigues of Licks Attorneys

New guidelines in Brazil give more power to ANVISA in the examination of pharmaceutical patent applications

On March 13, 2017, the board of directors of Agencia Nacional De Vigilancia Sanitari’s (ANVISA) announced that they had reached a new agreement with the Brazilian Patent Office, namely, the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI), concerning the prior approval provision under Article 229-C of the Brazilian Patent Statute (For more information about the 229-C article, please see our posts here, here, and here).  On April 12, 2017, after an event with several authorities and President Michel Temer, ANVISA and INPI published a written version of the new joint guidelines #1/2017 (translation enclosed here:  INTERAGENCY ORDINANCE). These guidelines describe the new workflow between ANVISA and INPI involving the examination of pharmaceutical patent applications.

Article 4 of the guidelines establishes that ANVISA will analyze whether a patent application is contrary to public health.  According to Article 4, a patent application claiming a product or process is considered to be contrary to public health when the product or process presents a “health risk”.  The article further states that the “health risk” will be characterized when the pharmaceutical product comprises, or the pharmaceutical process results in a substance that has been prohibited in the country”.    

If a product or process is found to pose a “health risk” (as defined in the Annex I of the Ministry of Health’s Ordinance #344 of 1998), ANVISA will deny prior approval and will send the application back to INPI for further handling. At this point, INPI will publish the definitive dismissal of the application. In other words, the application is denied.

The guidelines contain a new approach in the examination of patent applications claiming pharmaceutical products and processes of interest under the Brazilian government’s drug policies and pharmaceutical assistance of the National Healthcare System (SUS). Under Article 5, ANVISA will examine these applications of interest and prepare a “technical” opinion as to whether the claims meet the patentability requirements under Brazilian law.  This opinion will be sent to INPI for use as a third-party observation under Article 31 of the Patent Statute of 1996.  Once INPI receives ANVISA’s opinion, it is “free” to decide whether or not to agree with it.  In the event INPI disagrees with ANVISA’s opinion and grants the patent application, it will send ANVISA a list containing all granted patents and will continue to make this list available to ANVISA (Article 7 of the guidelines).  

The guidelines do not contain any information as to what ANVISA can or should do with the list of granted patents received from INPI.  Actions that ANVISA could take include filing a post-grant opposition or seeking invalidity of the patent before Federal Courts. 

Article 9 of the guidelines creates an Interagency Group between the two agencies. The purpose of this group is to seek to “harmonize” the understanding between the ANVISA and INPI regarding the application of patent law in “polemic” topics such as Markush claiming, selection inventions, the patentability of new uses, salts, polymorphs and antibodies, as well as other issues relevant to the pharmaceutical industry.  One concern is that such “harmonization” could result in an unlawful administrative ban of claims that are currently being allowed INPI. As such, Article 9 gives ANVISA power to influence the INPI in a multitude of ways. 

Additionally, it is important to note that the new guidelines come after several decisions were obtained against ANVISA by various pharmaceutical companies (See our post here) holding that that the agency lacked the statutory authorization to examine patentability requirements under Brazilian law.  After these early decisions were rendered (which held that ANVISA’s prior approval review was restricted solely to the analysis of potential public health issues and not patentability requirements), ANVISA amended its guidelines to include a provision stating that “the granting of patents that do not fulfil the patentability requirements violates public health”. This change was interpreted by the courts as an attempt by the agency to escape the unfavorable case law and avoid the new guidelines.  

As a whole, the guidelines read like an attempt by ANVISA to revive its ability to participate in the examination of pharmaceutical patent applications.  Interestingly, many the associations representing generic companies in Brazil such as ABIFINA and Pro Generics are celebrating the guidelines as a victory for the local industry. 

Continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for continuing updates on these new guidelines in Brazil.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Roberto Rodrigues Pinho from Licks Attorneys.

 

 

 

Brazil: Courts confirm preliminary injunction based on pending patent applications

On March 15, 2017, the Sao Paulo State Court of Appeals confirmed a preliminary injunction barring Uniao Quimica, a Brazilian generic company, from launching a generic version of Allergan’s Combigan® (brimonidine tartrate and timolol maleate).  Combigan® is prescribed for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who require adjunctive or replacement therapy due to inadequately controlled IOP.   

The preliminary injunction was granted in view of three patent applications filed by Allergan and pending before the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) since 2003 (namely, patent application no. PI0302584-5 filed in 2003 as well as divisional application nos. BR1220140116901-9 and BR122014016915-9 filed in 2012).  Application no. PI0302584-5 was rejected by INPI; however, an administrative appeal is pending. 

Allergan argued that the backlog and inefficiency of INPI had been punishing to the pharmaceutical company.  Specifically, Allergan argued that not granting the preliminary injunction based on the pending application would be “allowing third parties to freely infringe the application during its pendency”, and that the “patent owner would be absolutely deprived of effective means to protect its invention during the prosecution of the application, a proceeding the patent owner has no control over”. 

After the Trial Court issued an injunction on September 28, 2016, Uniao Quimica filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the grounds of the decision.  The reporting Appellate Judge, Hon. Francisco Loureiro, stayed the injunction concluding that the patent owner was only allowed to exclude others based on its patent rights after issuance of the patent by INPI. 

However, in a split decision (2-1), other members of the panel dissented from Hon. Loureiro, thus rejecting the interlocutory appeal and confirming the preliminary injunction.  The Hon. Cesar Ciampolini issued the deciding vote, stating that the preliminary injunction should be granted for the following reasons: (i) INPI’s inexcusable delay in examining patent applications; (ii) the rapid pace at which technology becomes obsolete; (iii) counterpart patents has been granted in several countries; (iv)  Uniao Quimica did not deny that its products were copies of Combigan®; and (v) Uniao Quimica’s behavior in launching generic copies was a matter of unfair competition and should not be allowed by the courts.

Although Uniao Quimica may still appeal to higher courts, the decision is an interesting outcome in view of INPI’s backlog in examining patent application.

Please continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for updates on the examination of patent applications by INPI.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller, Felipe Mesquita and Roberto Rodrigues Pinho of Licks Attorneys.

 

Two Important Decisions Addressing ANVISA’s Prior Approval of Pharmaceutical Patents in Brazil

In the second half of 2016, two very interesting decisions were issued by the federal courts in Brazil against the Brazilian Food and Drug Agency (ANVISA) involving the prior approval of patent applications claiming pharmaceutical products.  These decisions bring some very good news to pharmaceutical patent owners who have struggled for years with ANVISA while trying to protect their pharmaceutical patents in this country. 

In the decisions, Genentech and Novartis each obtained preliminary injunctions against ANVISA in cases of prior approval of their patent applications under Article 229-C of the Brazilian Patent Statute (Additional information about each of the decisions can be found here:  novartisdecision genentechdecision).  Specifically, Novartis’ patent application claims fingolimod (Gilenya) and Genentech’s application claims bevacizumab (Avastin). 

Two different trial judges affirmed that ANVISA did not have the authority to examine patentability requirements under Article 229-C of the Patent Statute.  In the decision involving Genentech’s application, the judge, the Honorable Diana Silva, limited ANVISA’s role during the prior approval process to only aspects involving public health. The decision also stated that the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, namely, the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) is the sole legitimate agency to examine the patentability requirements of patent applications directed to pharmaceutical products. 

The decision involving Novartis’ application is an important case for pharmaceutical companies facing the issues of backlog and pendency of their patent applications in Brazil.  Specifically, in this case, Novartis sought a preliminary injunction against ANVISA, claiming that the agency was taking an unreasonable amount of time to issue a decision regarding prior approval.  Additionally, Novartis also requested preventive measures against the agency to prevent it from examining the application for compliance with patentability requirements under the Brazilian Patent Statute (which is the function of INPI).   The judge, the Honorable Iolete Oliveira, accepted  Novartis’ arguments and granted a preliminary injunction ordering ANVISA to:  (1) analyze the prior approval of the patent application within 15 days; and (2) abstain from examining the application for compliance with any patentability requirements but focus instead only on aspects of public health. 

Both of these decisions highlight that the Brazilian federal courts are willing to limit ANVISA’s role under the prior approval analysis.  The Novartis case establishes important precedent that can be used by other companies currently waiting ANVISA’s decision on prior approval analysis. 

Please continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for continuing updates on Brazil’s prior approval of pharmaceutical patent applications.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Roberto Rodrigues Pinho, LLM candidate at Stanford University.

New Requirements in Brazil for Plant Variety Protection Applications in View of Brazil’s Biodiversity Law

Brazil’s Biodiversity Law No. 13,123 (Biodiversity Law) was signed into law on May 20, 2015.  Decree No. 8,772 (Decree) was issued on May 11, 2016 to implement the statute which repealed provisional measure 2,186-16 adopted by President Fernando Henrique Cardoso in 2001 (2001 Provisional Measure). The 2001 Provisional Measure has been criticized as overly complex and bureaucratic.  Nonetheless, one of the consequences of the Biodiversity Law and the Decree was the creation of several new obligations relating to the research and development of plant varieties in Brazil, particularly those resulting from the access to national genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge.

As a result, on October 24, 2016, the Brazilian Plant Variety Protection Office (PVP Office) implemented several new procedures relating to the filing and examination of PVP applications in order to comply with the provisions of the Biodiversity Law and Decree.  These new procedures can be found in English here: englishpvpprocedures.

One of the new procedures is the requirement of a declaration of access or non-access to national genetic heritage samples or associated traditional knowledge (access declaration) that might have occurred during the development of a new plant variety.  An access declaration must be submitted for any new plant variety that resulted from research where access to Brazilian genetic heritage or associated traditional knowledge might have occurred as of June 30, 2000.  For new applications, an access declaration will be required at the time of filing of an application.  The same applies for pending applications. The PVP Office will issue an Office Action requiring the submission of the declaration before granting protection.

The PVP Office has proposed two different wordings for an applicant’s access declaration:  (i) “The applicant declares that a genetic heritage or a traditional knowledge were accessed for the present protection request”; and (ii) “The applicant declares that neither a genetic heritage nor an associated traditional knowledge were accessed for the present protection request”.

In those instances where access to national genetic heritage samples occurred during the development of a new variety, the applicant must register the new variety at the Board of Management of Genetic Heritage – Brazilian Ministry of Environment (CGEN) prior to the filing of a PVP application.  Failure to do so will result in the shelving of the application by the PVP Office (Article 110 of the Decree).  Moreover, information relating to the registration at CGEN must be submitted at the time of the filing of the application along with the access declaration.  Despite having an integrated system, the Ministry of Agriculture’s CGEN electronic filing of documents is not yet available. The PVP Office has stated that Articles 37 and 38 of the Biodiversity Law will be disregarded and applicants will have more time than the one (1) year transitional period to provide the registration information to the office.

Any use of associated traditional knowledge requires prior and informed consent from the native community providing such knowledge (Article 9 of the Biodiversity Law).  Specifically, the community must be made aware of the social, cultural and environmental impact of providing such knowledge and must also be informed that it has the right to refuse the users access request (Article 16 of the Decree).

Applicants must comply with every requirement of the Biodiversity Law and Decree. Violations can result in several administrative sanctions, including fines, cancellation or shelving of an application, product seizure, interdiction of the offending applicant, etc.  Specifically, the fines provided by the Decree are as follows:

  1. Accessing traditional knowledge without the community’s prior approval:  From approximately USD 30,000 to approximately USD 3 million (Article 83 of the Decree);
  2. Failure to notify the CGEN of the marketing of finished products or reproductive materials:  From approximately USD 9,000 to approximately USD 3 million, which can be doubled in case of international marketing (Article 78 of the Decree);
  3. Sending genetic heritage abroad (outside of Brazil) without previous registry:  From approximately USD 30,000 to approximately USD 3 million, which can be tripled in the case endangered species are used (Article 79 of the Decree);
  4. Filing for patents in Brazil or abroad without previous registry:  From approximately USD 6,000 to approximately USD 3 million (Article 80 of the Decree);
  5. Disclosing results without previous registry:  From approximately USD 15,000 to approximately USD 150,000 (Article 81 of the Decree); and
  6. Failing to register the access before the marketing of intermediary products:  From approximately USD 15,000 to approximately USD 150,000 (Article 82 of the Decree).

Access and benefit sharing (ABS) agreements are required for any economic use of varieties originating from access to genetic heritage or associated traditional knowledge. ABS agreements are mandatory, even if the new variety is manufactured abroad.  The ABS agreements fall into two categories:

  1. Financial:  Requirement of payment to the National Fund for Benefit Sharing (FNRB) of 1% of the annual net income originating from the economic use of the genetic heritage. This amount may be reduced by up to 90% (0.1% of the net income) by filing a petition before the Environment Ministry (MMA); and
  2. Non-financial: Technology transfer, disclosure of the product to public domain, royalty-free licensing, etc.

Continue to watch the BRIC Wall Blog for continuing updates on Brazil’s Biodiversity Law.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Brenno Telles from Licks Attorneys.