While leading nations in technology race to strengthen their innovation ecosystems, Brazil still grapples with a paradox: those who invest in research can spend years waiting for a response from the state to transform knowledge into a protected asset.

Efficiency in patent registration has historically been a competitive advantage. Countries that grant patents within short timeframes provide predictability for those investing in R&D, unlock funding, and accelerate the arrival of new technologies to the market.

When the process drags on, innovation loses value, capital becomes more expensive, and promising projects migrate to safer environments.

The numbers help to illustrate Brazil's lag in this area. In the United States, the interval between the deposit and the final decision is usually around 2 to 3 years, depending on the sector and technological area.

In Brazil, the timeframe can exceed 10 years. To give you an idea, between 2000 and 2019, 60% of Brazilian patents took more than a decade to be reviewed.

“Although the overall patent review time has shown a slight improvement in recent years, delays are the norm,” says Thiago Falda, spokesperson for the Brazil for Innovation Movement and president of the Brazilian Biotechnology Association (ABBI).

The Movement brings together entities linked to intellectual property and technology-intensive sectors, such as ABBI, ABPI, CropLife, Interfarma, IBCIS and ILM, and operates with a broad agenda of alignment with international best practices.

To give you an idea, between 2000 and 2019, 60% of Brazilian patents took more than a decade to be analyzed.

The group advocates for clearer and more predictable rules to avoid investment losses, brain drain, and a growing disconnect with major innovation hubs.

At the heart of this agenda is the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), a mechanism used in leading innovation countries to compensate for state delays in patent review and restore predictability to those who invest in research.

The debate gained momentum after the Supreme Federal Court struck down a provision in the patent law that, in practice, automatically extended the protection period when the analysis took too long.

Since then, the country has operated without a specific rule to deal with delays attributable to the State itself. "The Supreme Court deemed this mechanism unconstitutional and, since then, there has been no other adjustment tool," says Falda.

The logic behind the PTA is simple: if the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) takes longer than reasonable to complete the analysis, the owner can request the opening of a procedure to acknowledge the delay and recover some of the lost time.

The State itself measures the delay, applies technical and objective criteria, and indicates what compensation is due, within previously defined limits.

This discussion is currently progressing in Congress through two avenues. The first is Amendment No. 4 to Bill 2210/2022, which aims to modernize the Industrial Property Law and incorporate the PTA (Authorization for Technological Innovation) into the system.

The second is Bill 5810/2025, dedicated to the topic, which provides for an extension of up to five years in the validity period of the patent to compensate for delays in INPI's analysis.

According to Falda, the existence of two simultaneous routes signals urgency and broader parliamentary support for correcting the distortion.

In practice, the slow pace of patent processing in Brazil is costly. For technology-intensive companies, which have few physical assets and depend on intellectual capital, waiting for a decision from the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property) hinders access to financing.

Falda points out that, in Brazil, collateral requirements are still high. BNDES, for example, requires 130% physical collateral for loan approvals. In this context, a granted patent can become a significant asset for securing funding.

The slow pace of patent processing in Brazil is costing money.

The executive claims to know of cases of companies that, lacking sufficient material guarantees in the country, sought financing abroad and ended up taking business units overseas because they were able to use the patent as collateral for the loans.

The delay also hinders mergers and acquisitions. In M&As, part of the valuation depends on intangible assets, and these need to be proven.

Without a granted patent, negotiations tend to come at a discount, and the investor demands a higher premium to cover the uncertainty. In the end, the risk increases and the return decreases, contrary to what a country that wants to increase its technological content should encourage.

There is also a quieter, but decisive effect: the lack of innovation. Falda draws attention to solutions focused on local problems, such as agricultural pests and sanitary challenges, which do not have the same impact in other countries.

"An agricultural pest that occurs in Brazil does not necessarily occur in the United States," he states. Without predictability of return, investors avoid products specifically for the Brazilian market, and local research itself loses momentum.

For proponents of the PTA, the gains go beyond the legal environment. A more predictable patent system tends to attract investment, stimulate R&D, boost the economy, generate jobs, and bring Brazil closer to global technology hubs, impacting strategic areas such as bioeconomy, artificial intelligence, health, energy transition, and defense, among others.

It also has a concrete effect on society: by reducing uncertainty and unlocking decision-making, new solutions have a better chance of moving from concept to reality and reaching the market faster.