Hitting the Ground Running: The Brazilian Patent Office Publishes New Guidelines Relating to the Examination of Chemical Inventions

On January 2, 2018, things got off to a fast start in Brazil with the publication of new guidelines (Guidelines) by the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI; also known as the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BRPTO)) relating to patent applications involving chemical inventions. The Guidelines complement several other guidelines issued over the last few years, such as block I (BRPTO Rule #124/2013) and block II (BRPTO Rule #169/2016).

The issued Guidelines add substantive text when compared to the draft published for public comment in March 2017.  Specifically, some highlights of the Guidelines include:

  1. Definition of a chemical compound:  A chemical compound should be defined by its chemical structure or chemical name.  Compounds defined only by their physical, physicochemical or biological properties or by its use or application (functional claiming), will not be accepted.  An example of a type of claim that will not be accepted is:  “A compound characterized by having property Y”.
  2. Examination requirements for N-oxides: According to item 2.4 of Guidelines, a simple description of a N-oxide/salt/ester/ether of a known compound will be considered to be obvious unless the compound is associated with a non-obvious property or an “unexpected technical effect” over the prior art.  INPI uses very specific language in this section of the Guidelines thus giving particularly strong emphasis and meaning to the phrase “unexpected technical effects”.  It is important for applicants to keep this phrase in mind when drafting their applications for filing in Brazil.
  3. Esters, ethers, pro-drugs, solvates, hydrates, clathrates, and co-crystals: These terms alone, in the absence of any specific content (namely, a definition), will be interpreted as generic expressions, and as such, run the risk of receiving an “indefiniteness” type rejection during examination.  Applicants should consider defining these terms in the specification to reduce the risk of receiving such a rejection.
  4. Selection patents:  Comparative data between selected compound(s) claimed in an application and those of close structural similarity known in prior art should be provided for the purpose of demonstrating how the selected compounds are non-obvious over the prior art.  Specifically, applicants should demonstrate how the selected compounds exhibit an unexpected technical effect over the prior art compounds.
  5. Written description of polymorph inventions:  Advanced techniques used to characterize crystalline solid substances that were not foreseen in the Guidelines will be considered, in addition to x-ray diffraction data, by examiners in light of their relevance in the identification of the claimed crystalline solid.  Additionally, a lack of data characterizing a crystalline solid will result in the specification being considered to not clearly and sufficiently describe the claimed subject matter.  Moreover, INPI will consider the submission of further data on the characterization of crystalline solids after the filing date to be added subject matter (or new matter) which will not be accepted (however, such a decision could form the basis of a challenge in the Brazilian court system).
  6. Combination claims:  As discussed in the draft of the guidelines, when assessing the obviousness of a combination claim, the combination should not have been disclosed in the prior art in connection with compounds belonging to the same chemical class.
  7. New medical use claims: The specification should provide evidence supporting a new medical use as of the filing date of the application.  Failure to do so may result in the application being considered to lack an essential technical feature thereby resulting in the invention being considered to be insufficiently disclosed.  According to the Guidelines, extrapolation of “in vitro” tests to support an in vivo effect will only be possible when complementary information  proving equivalence is provided (such as through the use of a scientific publication stating that an in vitro-in vivo correlation exists).  Additionally, studies carried out in animal models must be capable of being extrapolated to humans or the animals being treated.
  8. Submission of additional data during prosecution:  Item 9.1.3 of the Guidelines states that an applicant can submit additional data during examination exclusively to complement the information already contained in the specification as originally filed.  If no experimental data is provided in the specification at the time of filing, there is a risk that INPI may reject the submission of such new data.

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

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/)

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.

An Overview of the USTR’s 2016 Special 301 Report on the State of IPR in Brazil

In this post, the BRIC Wall Blog continues to examine the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) 2016 Special 301 report (Report) reviewing the state of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement in U.S. trading partners around the world. The Report details the results of extensive research and analysis, which led to placing eleven countries on the priority watch list and twenty-three on the watch list. Brazil remains on the Watch List in 2016.   

Despite efforts to protect against online piracy, significant concerns remain over the high levels of piracy and counterfeiting in Brazil. In order to create public awareness and enact enforcement campaigns, the National Council on Combating Piracy and International Property Crimes (CNCP) was identified in past years as an effective entity for carrying out public awareness and enforcement campaigns. Unfortunately, the CNCP was underutilized and overall ineffective in 2015. In the Report, the United States urges Brazil to provide resources for intellectual property (IP) enforcement and seeks further commitments from the country on the strengthening of its IPR protection and enforcement measures. 

The Report also addresses the continued problem of significant delays in the examination of patents and trademarks, which, on average, take about eleven and three years, respectively. In early 2016, the United States-Brazil Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program was enacted to expedite the patent examination process in Brazil, specifically for inventions related to the oil and gas sector. Despite this positive step forward, there is still a duplicative review of pharmaceutical patent applications by the National Sanitary Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) which lacks transparency, exacerbates delays of patent registrations for innovative medications, and prevents patent examination by the National Institute of Intellectual Property (INPI).  

Furthermore, although there are laws and regulations in Brazil to protect veterinary and agricultural chemical products against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test data and other data generated to maintain marketing approval, these same laws and regulations do not apply to pharmaceutical products. Additionally, the Report notes that actions are being taken by INPI to invalidate or shorten the term of certain “mailbox” patents for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The Report concludes that the strengthening of IPR enforcement and protection for foreign and domestic right holders as well as expediting the examination of trademarks and patents is essential for continued innovation and investment in Brazil.  

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Kate Merath.