The Draft Complementary Law (PLP) No. 32/2026, which provides for compensation mechanisms for delays in the analysis of **patents**, is generating controversy among entities linked to the national pharmaceutical industry, scientific research, and agribusiness. The project was presented with the aim of strengthening technological sovereignty, economic development, and avoiding losses caused by the delay of the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in granting patents. However, critics argue that the initiative may benefit foreign companies and multinational pharmaceutical companies, expanding the monopoly on **patents** Brazilian. Currently, **Invention Patents** (PI) have a validity of 20 years, counted from the date of application to INPI. The bill provides for the extension of the valid time of the patent when there is excessive delay by INPI, in addition to creating a budget protection to prevent resources destined for patent protection from being targeted by cuts or contingencies.
The controversy surrounding PLP No. 32/2026 was accentuated after the case of the loss of international patent of **polylaminina**, research carried out at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). According to researcher Tatiana Sampaio, the loss occurred due to the lack of government resources allocated to the university. Entities such as Grupo FarmaBrasil, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, and the Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science argue that approval of the project may delay the arrival of **generic drugs** and **biosimilars** to the market, keep expensive drugs for longer and put private profit above the right to health and public interest. Furthermore, they argue that there is no “legal vacuum” due to INPI’s delay, citing a judgment of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) that considered unconstitutional article 40 of the Patent Law, which allowed extending the exclusivity of an invention if INPI took time to analyze the request.
Entities critical of PLP No. 32/2026 emphasize that the extension of **patent** terms may create barriers to competition, increase costs, and reduce the predictability needed for scientific, technological, and productive development. They also highlight the importance of protecting the right to health and public interest, ensuring access to medicines at affordable prices. In the context of **patent policy**, the discussion around PLP No. 32/2026 highlights the complexity of the relationships between intellectual property, innovation, and economic development. The processing of the project in the National Congress must be closely monitored, considering the potential implications for public health and the national pharmaceutical sector.
The discussion around PLP No. 32/2026 also raises questions about the efficiency of INPI and the need to improve infrastructure for **patent** analysis. While entities critical of the project argue that the solution is not in the extension of patent terms, but rather in improving INPI’s efficiency, project defenders argue that delays in patent analysis can harm innovation and economic development. In any case, the processing of PLP No. 32/2026 must be accompanied with attention, considering the potential implications for public health, the national pharmaceutical sector, and **patent** policy in Brazil.
Note que fiz uma tradução literal, mantendo a estrutura HTML original e sem adicionar conteúdo. Algumas expressões e termos técnicos podem ter sido traduzidos de forma diferente dependendo do contexto e do público-alvo. Caso você precise de ajustes ou revisões, por favor solicite!