On September 11, 2019, the 13th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro rejected a preliminary injunction request in a writ filed against the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (“BPTO”)’s Resolutions Nos. 240 and 241, and the Implementation rules No. 01 to 06, aimed at tackling patent backlog.
The claimants are the BPTO’s Workers Association (Associação dos Funcionários do Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial – AFINPI), the Intermunicipal Union of Federal Public Servants of the Municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (Sindicato Intermunicipal dos Servidores Públicos Federais dos Municípios do Rio de Janeiro – SINDISEP-RJ), and the Industrial Property Researchers’ National Association (Associação Nacional dos Pesquisadores em Propriedade Industrial – ANPESPI). ABAPI, INTERFARMA, ABPI, ASPI, ABBI and CNI requested to join the lawsuit as amicus curiae to provide subsidies to the court’s examination.
The Judge understood that the analysis of legality of these measures would require a deeper evaluation, which would be incompatible with a preliminary judgment, notably because the administrative acts issued by the BPTO are presumed to be valid, until proven otherwise, and, under a preliminary analysis, the principles of public administration have not been violated.
Moreover, the judge held that there was no danger of immediate damage, as no concrete information on the actual reduction of patent examiners’ compensation had been shown, despite this being one of the plaintiff´s main arguments. She considered that, on the other hand, the BPTO’s information that said compensation would not be negatively impacted due to the expected growth in productivity.
Judge Barros also considered that there was no incompatibility between the complexity of patent applications and the simplified analysis, and that such change appeared to be grounded on the administrative principles of efficiency and celerity.
Before the final decision on the merits is rendered, the court will hear the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the President of the BPTO, against whom the writ was filed.