Due to this situation INPI, seeking to incentive the public, had arranged a debate called "The law of patents and the future of innovation technology in Brazil" taking place last Thursday 27th October. [You can have more information of what happen in the debate here – from academic perspective to agricultural products]
Now getting the dates right, the previous week INPI noted that ‘Innovation and intellectual property’ were to be entered on the agenda of the Brazilian academic. To this effect the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) Innovation Agency has signed a cooperation agreement with INPI -- the goal of the partnership, signed on October 21, 2011, is to further expand the use of IP in the university, which was the sixth largest patent applicant at the INPI between 2004-2008 with 141 applications, followed by Petrobras, Unicamp, USP, UFMG and Whirlpool.
The partnership will include awareness - raising seminars on the subject, training in intellectual property, and a course on intellectual property issues in graduate courses in Biotechnology conducted by UFRJ.
Justice denies extension of anti-cancer drug patent [does this one promotes?]
INPI notified that it has another victory against a pharmaceutical. On October 26, 2011, the Federal Court of the 2nd Region (TRF-2) denied unanimously the appeal that sought to extend the validity of the patent medicine called ‘capecitabine’, used to treat cancer of the colon, rectum, breast, stomach, pancreas and gullet. The appellants hoped to increase the validity of the patent until December 2013, but the court agreed to keep the deadline set by INPI -- December 2012.
Sunday Surprises
16 hours ago
2 comments
Write commentsThat's an interesting set of news, thanks for sending. I don't understand the bit included in the title of the final section ("[does this one promotes?])" -- what are you trying to say there? Please explain.
ReplyThanks Ken, the INPI web page was not working for several days so I tried to cover several news. Now re. Does this one promote? Refer to the fact that the case may have to do with the pipeline system (my strong guess because I have not read the case as yet). The situation is that the system has brought so many cases into court – trying to extend the period and so the question refers to the contradiction: is the system unconstitutional and (in some situations) against public interest, and on the other hand some believe that it is not quite reasonable because owners are not entitled to the regular 20-year patent term. Therefore, the question is open – what side of the coin you are on? While many pharmaceutical companies see this as a discouragement, there is the need to bear in mind that until recently pharmaceutical patents were not allowed in Brazil. When they did, they put into place the pipeline system – I would say it is a quid pro quo.
Reply