Thursday, October 13 2022   \  Published by CNV Advogados Associados.

Particularities of the National Phase of PCT in Brazil

Particularities of the National Phase of PCT in Brazil

Most patents filed in Brazil have the PCT as an entry route. In 2019, for example, 7123 invention patents were filed directly and 18274 via PCT. The country has important particularities and requirements, we highlight the main ones, in order for a foreign company to avoid problems when carrying out the national phase of its order in Brazil.Reservations to PCT It is important to highlight that Brazil has reservations regarding the treaty, which can be consulted directly on the WIPO website. We highlight the reservation regarding the restoration of rights and the restoration of priority rights (Rule 49ter.1 paragraph (g) and 49ter.2 paragraph (h) of the PCT Execution Regulation).

It is important to mention that, even if the priority restoration has been accepted by WIPO (example: PCT deposit after 12 months), INPI-BR is not obliged to accept it. Read more

ORDINANCE/INPI/Nº 39, of August 23, 2021 describes in its Art. 22 that, when the period of 30 (thirty) months is not observed, according to Rule 49.6 of Reg. Exec. of the PCT, the applicant may request the re-establishment of the right to enter the National Phase in Brazil (payment of an additional fee) together with the documentation proving that the lack of execution of the acts was involuntary or that it occurred despite having taken the precautions required by the circumstances. The period for such request is 2 (two) months, counted from the date of cessation of the reason that prevented the observance of the period, or 12 (twelve) months, counted from the expiry date of the period provided for in the aforementioned articles of the PCT Treaty, the which expires first.

It is important to remember that in OPINION/INPI/PROC/DICONS/Nº 43/2003, in NOTA/INPI/PROC/DICONS/Nº 500/2004 and in NOTA/INPI/PROC/DICONS/Nº 530/2004, INPI-BR describes that the allegation of lack of communication between the parties does not constitute a plausible reason for the restoration of rights, since such failure is considered as a “failure of the applicant's internal control”. Read more

Ready to Get Started?

Contact Sales