On June 19, 2026, the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) published the awaited report “Proposals for the Improvement of the Industrial Property Law — LPI (9.279/1996)”, a document consolidating internal proposals for the revision of the law that has governed industrial property in Brazil for exactly 30 years.
It is not a bill — yet. But it is the most concrete sign that the debate on the modernization of the LPI is moving out of academic circles and onto the institutional agenda.
How the report was constructed
The document was produced by a Working Group (WG) for the Revision of the LPI, established within INPI. The process occurred in two phases:
Phase 1 (2024–2025): Internal consultation with INPI staff. Each staff member was invited to submit suggestions for modifications to the LPI covering patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications.
Phase 2 (End of 2025): INPI managers analyzed all received proposals, filtering those considered viable, relevant, and timely. The result is a consolidated list of priority topics that warrant legislative amendment.
The complete document — Proposals for the Improvement of the LPI — is available on the INPI website.
Why this matters now
The LPI was enacted in May 1996, replacing the old Industrial Property Code of 1971 (Law 5.772/71). Three decades later, the technological and legal landscape has radically changed:
- Digital transformation — software, AI-generated inventions, and blockchain were not part of the original legislative discussion
- The flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement — the use of compulsory licensing in Brazil and the ongoing debate about Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)
- The institutional transformation of INPI — the agency has evolved from a paper-based examination system to one that implements AI-assisted search, electronic filing, and a digital service module
- The revocation of the sole paragraph of article 40 — the STF’s decision in ADI 5.529 (2021) and subsequent legislative changes (Law 14.195/2021) created a new legal framework that the LPI still only partially reflects
What the report addresses
Broadly, the document addresses proposals in five major areas:
| Area | Topics |
|---|---|
| Patents | Examination procedures, definitions of prior art, standards for descriptive sufficiency |
| Trademarks | Bad-faith registrations, non-traditional trademarks, opposition procedures |
| Industrial Designs | Substantive examination, term adjustments |
| Geographical Indications | Registration criteria, recognition procedures |
| Cross-cutting | Digitalization, administrative procedures, enforcement |
It is important to note what the report does not do: it does not propose the text of a new law. It serves as technical support for the Executive and Legislative branches — a starting point for drafting a bill that can update the LPI to reflect the current innovation ecosystem in Brazil.
Key changes addressed for patents
The proposals raised can be highlighted among those that are merely procedural, such as changes in fees and deadlines, and others that alter the text to incorporate what is already settled in jurisprudence or that result from changes in the landscape over the last 30 years of the LPI.
Among those that change the substance of the LPI, those relating to patentable subject matter and the express prohibition of double protection stand out.
Regarding the amendment of articles 10 and 18, the focus is on inventions in the areas of biotechnology and software. The proposal is to allow the protection of parts of living beings, biological sequences, and extracts. The change is supported by the General Coordination of Appeals and Administrative Nullity Proceedings (CGREC), which understands that the provisions restrict patent protection for items such as plant extracts with pharmacological activity, microorganisms isolated from nature, peptides that constitute a “part” of natural proteins, and plants with edited genomes.
The second major change lies in the legal adoption of a jurisprudential understanding regarding the prohibition of double protection for the same invention. Personally, I have encountered some cases of patent application grants that were claimed at different times, with more specific scopes of protection, and which ultimately led to the protection of the same subject matter in 3 (three) granted patents. This practice is not permitted and causes harm to the patent system by unduly extending protection. Therefore, DIRPA’s initiative seeks to curb this practice by formally prohibiting double protection, with the aim of avoiding misinterpretations, applying especially to cases of divisional applications.
Lessons for startups and deep techs
For startups and deep techs navigating the Brazilian IP system, the report signals two important trends:
Greater predictability. INPI’s move towards clearer examination guidelines — combined with the automation roadmap 2025–2029 — suggests that examination deadlines and criteria will become more standardized. This directly impacts FTO analyses and prosecution timelines.
Greater engagement from INPI. The report was built from internal contributions, but the next phase — public consultation and legislative debate — will be the moment for stakeholders to participate. Companies that monitor these developments gain strategic advantages in defining the rules that will govern their IP portfolios.
This is the first concrete step in what will likely be a multi-year legislative process. I will be following the developments and writing about each phase.
Read also:
- INPI’s backlog is over — but not for pharmaceutical patents
- Patent Term Adjustment: Big Pharma lost at the STJ, but the debate has reached Congress
- INPI’s ambitious automation roadmap
If this content was useful, subscribe to my newsletter for monthly updates on IP and innovation in Brazil.