Backlog Combat Plan
The Directorate of Patents, Software and Topography of Integrated Circuits (DIRPA) initiated the Backlog Combat Project aiming at the substantial reduction in the number of applications for patent of invention with examination requested and pending decision, in a period of 2 years. The combat Plan attacks the 149,912 applications for patent that on August 1st, 2019 met the conditions of art. 2 of the Resolution 240/19.
In order to achieve this goal, the preliminary requirements were established, according to Resolutions No. 240/19 and 241/19, that will be published in the INPI’s Gazette (RPI) under the dispatch codes 6.22 and 6.21, respectively.
The dispatch of code 6.21 will be issued for applications that have a correspondent with search available made by another office and the dispatch of code 6.22, for the applications that do not have a correspondent with search available made by another office.
In this tab, the user will find all information available on the project, such as Resolutions No. 240/19 and 241/19, the DIRPA Implementing Rules No. 1/19 and No. 7/19.
| English version: Resolution INPI PR n. 240/19 and Resolution INPI PR n. 241/19. |
|---|
Statistics
Follow the numbers associated with the project, with the updates of weekly publications of decisions 6.21 and 6.22, of the decisions made and of the reduction in the backlog.
| Status of the 149,912 patent applications that on August 1st, 2019 met the conditions of art. 2 of Resolution 240/19 | Status of the patent applications that on August 1st, 2019 met the conditions of art. 2 of Resolution 240/19 and are related to the art. 229-c of the Brazilian IP Law (LPI) |
 |
 |
* Updated once a month:
Historical series
| Status of the 149,912 patent applications that on August 1st, 2019 met the conditions of art. 2 of Resolution 240/19 | Status of the patent applications that on August 1st, 2019 met the conditions of art. 2 of Resolution 240/19 and are related to the art. 229-c of the Brazilian IP Law (LPI) |
 |
 |
Follow the historical evolution of the status of the applications of the Backlog Combat Plan.
Procedures 6.21 and 6.22
In order to provide clarifications on the nature and the flow of preliminary requirements (decisions 6.21 and 6.22), considering the provisions of INPI/PR resolutions No. 240/19 and 241/19, we present the comparative table and flowchart below.
|
6.20 (Pre-examination)
|
6.21 (Preliminary requirement)
|
6.22 (Preliminary requirement)
|
|---|---|---|
|
Resolution n° 227/2018
|
Resolution n° 241/2019
|
Resolution n° 240/2019
|
|
Legal grounds: art. 34 (LPI)
|
Legal grounds: art. 36 (LPI)
|
Legal grounds: art. 36 (LPI)
|
|
Term for response: 60 days
|
Term for response: 90 days
|
Term for response: 90 days
|
|
No response: dismissal (11.5)
|
No response: final dismissal (11.2)
|
No response: final dismissal (11.2)
|
|
Possibility of additional search conditioned to the submission of the search strategy and documents relevant to the patentability analysis.
|
Additional search vetoed. | Additional search vetoed. |
|
Impossibility of rejection on the first examination after 6.20
|
Possibility of rejection on the first examination after 6.21
|
Impossibility of rejection on the first examination after 6.22
|
|
When it was performed: Performed from October 2018 to July 2019
|
When it was performed: As of July 22, 2019
|
When it was performed: As of August 1st, 2019
|
|
Criteria:
|
Criteria:
|
Criteria:
|
|
not submitted to the 1st technical examination performed by INPI;
|
not submitted to the 1st technical examination performed by INPI;
|
not submitted to the 1st technical examination performed by INPI;
|
|
not subject to the request of any type of prioritized examination in INPI;
|
not subject to the request of any type of prioritized examination in INPI;
|
not subject to the request of any type of prioritized examination in INPI;
|
|
does not include the petition for subsidies of 3rd parties for the examination or opinion of ANVISA’s subsidies; and
|
does not include the petition for subsidies of 3rd parties for the examination or opinion of ANVISA’s subsidies; and
|
does not include the petition for subsidies of 3rd parties for the examination or opinion of ANVISA’s subsidies; and
|
|
has a corresponding application with prior-art searches performed by Patent Offices from other countries, of International or Regional Organizations;
|
has a corresponding application with prior-art searches performed by Patent Offices from other countries, of International or Regional Organizations;
|
does not have a corresponding application with prior-art searches performed by Patent Offices from other countries, of International or Regional Organizations; and
|
|
with filing date until 12/31/2016.
|
with filing date until 12/31/2016.
|
|
|
consisting of:
|
consisting of:
|
consisting of:
|
|
Search Report
|
Search Report (limited to prior-art documents referred to in the searches and/or in the technical examination performed by Patent Offices from other countries, of International or Regional organizations)
|
Search Report
|
|
Request (standard) for the applicant to adapt the application and/or present arguments regarding the patentability requirements according to the documents referred to in the search report.
|
Requirement (standard) for the applicant to adapt the application and/or present arguments regarding the patentability requirements according to the documents referred to in the search report.
|
Requirement (standard) for the applicant to adapt the application and/or present arguments regarding the patentability requirements according to the documents referred to in the search report.
|
|
Noting that the application shall comply with the provisions of arts. 10, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 32 of the LPI and the INPI/PR Normative Instructions No. 30/2013 and No. 31/2013
|
Noting that the application shall comply with the provisions of arts. 10, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 32 of the LPI and the INPI/PR Normative Instructions No. 30/2013 and No. 31/2013
|
Noting that the application shall comply with the provisions of arts. 10, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 32 of the LPI and the INPI/PR Normative Instructions No. 30/2013 and No. 31/2013
|
|
What is expected as a response:
|
What is expected as a response:
|
What is expected as a response:
|
|
technical discussion of the documents submitted in the search report regarding invention claimed in this application
|
technical discussion of the documents submitted in the search report regarding invention claimed in this application
|
technical discussion of the documents submitted in the search report regarding invention claimed in this application
|
|
if necessary, adjustment of the patent claim scope to the patentability criteria and the provisions of arts. 10, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 32 of the LPI and the INPI/PR Normative Instructions No. 30/2013 and No. 31/2013.
|
if necessary, adjustment of the patent claim scope to the patentability criteria and the provisions of arts. 10, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 32 of the LPI and the INPI/PR Normative Instructions No. 30/2013 and No. 31/2013.
|
if necessary, adjustment of the patent claim scope to the patentability criteria and the provisions of arts. 10, 18, 22, 24, 25, and 32 of the LPI and the INPI/PR Normative Instructions No. 30/2013 and No. 31/2013.
|
Opinions
|
Attention! Given the increase in the amount of decisions 6.21 and 6.22 that will be published in the in the INPI’s Gazettes during the effectiveness of the project, INPI has provided the e-Patent/Opinion system. The main purpose of this system is to make the access to documentation produced by INPI’s patent examiners easier, in order to ensure a response by the applicant within the term established by art. 36 of Law No. 9,279/96. During the effectiveness of the project, the system will allow the INPI's user to access the opinions generated during the examination of applications for patent, using recovery tools. The opinions are available as files with PDF extension and digital certification, containing the prior-art documents mentioned. In addition to the preliminary requirement opinions, all opinions associated with applications subsequent to decisions 6.21 and 6.22 will also be available in the system. |
|---|
Responses on the plan
Access the opinion on the Backlog Combat Plan
* Entities Official Letter No. 024/2019 for a support message to INPI’s Patent Backlog Combat Plan
* Letter of support to INPI’s efforts to reduce patent backlog.
* The Writ of mandamus No. 5051373-49.2019.4.02.5101/RJ was filed by the associations SINDISEP-RJ, AFINPI, and ANPESPI, aiming at the suspension of the effects of INPI/PR Resolutions 240/19 and 241/19 that, collectively with DIRPA Implementation Rules from 01/19 to 06/19, institute a Patent Backlog Combat Plan.
* On September 11, the decision of the federal judge Márcia Maria Nunes de Barros, of the 13th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro, was published, rejecting the injunction request contained in the writ of mandamus. The magistrate, in her preliminary examination, ruled out the associations’ claims that the rules were violating the legality, impersonality, efficiency, and morality principles, as well as the violation of the legal situation agreed with civil servants in regard to compensation for the performance. Finally, she understood that the measure persecuted requires broad convincing, inconsistent with the preliminary judgment, since it is a suspension of the administrative acts issued by INPI, which, until proven otherwise, are presumed valid.
* In the process, the Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry – INTERFARMA, the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association – ABPI, the São Paulo Association of Intellectual Property – ASPI, the Brazilian Association of Industrial Biotechnology – ABBI, and the National Confederation of Industry – CNI present themselves as amicus curiae.
* The civil servants associations SINDISEP-RJ, AFINPI, and ANPESPI, through the Letter/Joint Commission/No. 003/2019, presented a charge to INPI’s Internal Affairs Bureau against the Director of Patents, Software, and Topography of Integrated Circuits, evidencing as reason art. 116, items VI and XII, of Law No. 8,112/90, whose intention would be to acknowledge the occurrence of a potentially illegal fact. The charge is related to the content of INPI/PR Resolutions 240/19 and 241/19 that, collectively with the DIRPA Implementation Rules from 01/19 to 06/19, establish the Patent Backlog Combat Plan and its potential illegality, related to the duplication of the working load of patent examiners and the uncertainty brought to the national IP system with the plan. Furthermore, the associations formulated consultations regarding the liability of civil servants for potentially illegal compliance.
* In her response, through Opinion No. 13/2019/INPI/PR/COGER, the Chief Magistrate decided for the non-establishment of any type of repressive of disciplinary nature, considering the non-presentation of the materiality and authorship administrative violation evidence on the part of the Patent Director.
* Letter of support from Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association – JPMA.