TRF-2 confirms ruling that paves the way for the restructuring of INPI

On June 22, 2026, the 1st Specialized Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region (TRF-2) unanimously confirmed the judgment issued in Public Civil Action No. 5095710-55.2021.4.02.5101/RJ, proposed by the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association (ABPI) against the INPI and the Union. The decision represents a milestone in the autarchy’s structuring and reverberates throughout the entire Brazilian industrial property system.

What the TRF-2 decided

The panel, composed of Federal Judges Simone Schreiber (Rapporteur), Cláudia Franco Corrêa, and Júlio de Castilhos, fully upheld the original judgment. The ruling recognizes the need for the INPI’s restructuring and determines a prospective path for the diagnosis and improvement of the autarchy, seeking to ensure material and financial conditions for this purpose.

Throughout the trial — which had already been discussed in previous sessions — the relevance of ABPI’s work and its pioneering role in defending the Brazilian industrial property system was highlighted.

The history of the action

The Public Civil Action was filed in 2021, during the tenure of the then president of ABPI, Luiz Edgard Montaury Pimenta. The central thesis was that the INPI, despite institutional advances in recent years, lacked the structural conditions to fully exercise its constitutional and legal attributions.

The oral arguments in the trial were led by Gabriel Leonardos, former president of ABPI, who conducted the technical argumentation on the need to strengthen the autarchy as a condition for the legal certainty of the IP system in Brazil. ABIFINA (Brazilian Association of Fine Chemicals, Biotechnology, and Specialty Industries) and ABAPI (Brazilian Association of Industrial Property Agents) acted as amici curiae.

What it means in practice

The TRF-2’s decision is not limited to the specific case. It establishes a judicial precedent that recognizes the Brazilian State’s obligation to provide the INPI with the necessary means to perform its functions. This includes:

Dimension	Impact
Budgetary	Pressure for an increase in the autarchy’s budget, currently insufficient given the volume of applications
People management	Possibility of new public tenders and recomposition of the technical staff
Technological infrastructure	Acceleration of the automation and digitalization roadmap
Predictability	Greater security for system users — applicants, examiners, and investors

For companies and startups that depend on the patent and trademark system, the signal is clear: the Judiciary recognizes that a strengthened INPI is a condition for the country’s competitiveness. The decision adds to other recent advances, such as the Backlog Combat Plan, the publication of examination guidelines, and the 2025–2029 automation roadmap.

Connections with the current scenario

This decision comes at a time when the INPI had already been accumulating institutional achievements:

The LPI improvement proposals report (June/2026), which consolidates internal suggestions to modernize Law 9.279/1996
The public consultation on patents for new uses in the chemistry area (2025-2026)
The 2025–2029 automation roadmap, which promises to digitally transform patent examination

However, the TRF-2’s decision addresses the root of the problem: there is no point in modernizing processes if the autarchy lacks the budget and personnel to execute them. The judicial recognition of this reality is an important step, but implementation will depend on the political will of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Lessons for the innovation ecosystem

For startups, deep techs, and investors navigating the Brazilian IP system, the decision brings two important messages:

The Judiciary is attentive to the INPI’s functioning. Decisions like this create jurisprudence that can be invoked in other actions — including claims for compensation due to delays in patent examination.
Strengthening the INPI is an agenda for all stakeholders. ABPI, ABIFINA, and ABAPI demonstrated that collective action can generate significant institutional changes. Companies that monitor these developments gain a strategic advantage.