By ...

The Ministry of Environment published on its website the new templates of Benefit Sharing Agreements in compliance with the Biodiversity Act (Law # 13.123/2015). In light of such Act, the one who carries out activities of research and development accessing Brazilian genetic resources and traditional knowledge must share the benefits arising out of such activities if they originated a finished product or reproductive resources.

Allergan had obtained an injunction preventing the marketing of a generic drug for Combingan®. However, such injunction was revoked because the Trial … São Paulo Court allows the marketing of generic drug while the patent applications for the reference drug are still pending

After the ratifications of 2/3 of WTO (World Trade Organization) members, article 31 bis was formally brought into the text of TRIPs Agreement. Such provision aims at allowing compulsory licenses for export in order to meet the needs of countries with insufficient or no capacity of manufacturing drugs. It is a direct result of Doha Declaration on TRIPs Agreement and Public Health of 2001, which aims at striking a balance between IP protection and access to health care.

Currently, there is a relevant discussion on what may be considered as public performance, particularly with relation to streaming activities. While there is a pending case before the Superior Court of Justice (Special Appeal REsp 1.559.264) where it is discussed whether streaming services may be classified as public performances, the lower Courts are already having their saying in this matter.

Article published on World Intellectual Property Review
Annual 2016.

Published on May 11, 2016, the Decree # 8,772/16 regulates Law #13,123/2015, which provides rules for the access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge and benefit sharing for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Kasznar Leonardos Advogados' litigation team, specialized

in Intellectual Property matters, discussed the concrete

implementation of the new Code of Civil Procedure

(effective as of March 18, 2016) in a workshop held in the

São Paulo offices, on March 4 and 5, marking the closing

of a profound cycle of studies on the subject.

In the trial of Special Appeal # 1.512.647 (decided on the 13th of May and published on the 5th of August), the Superior Court of Justice (in charge of standardizing the jurisprudence in Brazilian Courts) provided some guidance on liability of ISP in case of copyright infringement – an issue that was not codified by the Civil Basis for the Internet (“Marco Civil”). In the case at stake, a video producer filed a lawsuit against Google demanding the removal of several Orkut communities that were offering for sale a range of unauthorized copies of educational videos. The producer also requested the payment of damages. According to the producer, Google failed to remove the Orkut[1] communities after receiving a cease and desist letter, whereas Google alleged that such C&D letter did not inform the URLs of the infringing pages.

The Special Appeal was lodged by Google against a decision rendered by the State Court of Appeals of Minas Gerais[2]. This decision ordered the company (i) to pay damages to the producer in an amount to be fixed by an Expert or, in case that was not feasible, in accordance with article 103 of Brazilian Copyright Act[3]; and (ii) to remove the infringing pages. In brief, Google alleged that the company company could not comply with the Court order, as the producer did not inform the URLs of the infringing pages. Moreover, the company argued that it was a case of subjective liability and Goggle did not perform any activity that was deemed as copyright infringement.

Although this case happened before the Civil Basis for the Internet entered in force, the Reporting Justice Luís Felipe Salomão understood that it was desirable to render a decision that was in line with the principles enshrined by that Act. Therefore, he confirmed that it was a case of subjective liability, and underlined that, since the matter was not codified by the Civil Basis for the Internet, the Brazilian Copyright Act applies.

[1] A social network that was owned by Google.

[2] A State in Southeast Brazil.

[3] That establishes a presumption of selling of 3,000 (three thousand) infringing copies.

INTRODUCCIÓN: EL INSTITUTO DE LA PREVIA ANUENCIA Y LOS DILEMAS QUE LO MISMO HA GENERADO.

Pasados dieciséis años de la promulgación de la Ley Brasileña de Propiedad Industrial (Ley nº 9.279/1996), la cual introdujo en el ordenamiento jurídico brasileño las reglas establecidas en el Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual Relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC), una de las cuestiones jurídicas más polémicas que se coloca cuanto a su interpretación sigue todavía sin solución: ¿cuál debe ser el rol de la Agencia Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria (ANVISA, en el acrónimo portugués) en la concesión de patentes de fármacos? Tal pregunta se hace respeto a la correcta interpretación del artículo 229-C de la Ley nº 9.279/1996, que a la letra señala: