Brazil’s Federal Court Reviews Medicines Mailbox Patents

This week the media reported that the Brazilian federal court removed the patent protection for eculizumab, sold under the brand name Soliris by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.  Eculizumab is used in the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a rare and life-threatening blood disease. The product was approved by the US FDA for this indication in 2016. Brazil’s health care system spent $184.2 million to treat 442 patients with Soliris, an average of over $416,000 per patient. The ruling of the federal court may affect more pharmaceutical mailbox patents. This blog explains why this is.

When the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created, and the TRIPS Agreement went into force on 1 January 1995, Brazil did not grant patents for pharmaceuticals. Therefore Brazil could make use of a transitional flexibility in the TRIPS Agreement that allowed developing countries not yet granting medicines patents to delay the granting of patents until 1 January 2005. TRIPS (Article 70.8), however, did require countries that made use of this transition flexibility to provide a mailbox in which would-be patent holders could file their patent applications from 1 January 1995 onwards. Brazil had such a mailbox, which was maintained until May 1997 when Brazil’s new TRIPS-compliant patent law went into force and the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), the Brazilian patent office, started to grant pharmaceutical patents. Brazilian patent law (Article 40) prescribes that the patent term shall be 20 years for inventions. The patent term was set to be 20 years from filing and not less than 10 years from the date of grant. This minimum 10-year protection is not required by TRIPS and was included to cover instances where the INPI would take more than 10 years to examine and grant a patent. The 10-year minimum did not extend to mailbox patents; however,  INPI has been granting mailbox patents with a ten-year duration since 1997 even though this was not required. Hence, patent PI 9507594 claiming eculizumab granted on 10 August 2010 was due to expire 10 years later.

In 2013, the head of INPI published a brief confirming that the term of the mailbox patent should be 20 years from the date of filing and that there was no minimum term. A court decision of June 2015 then established that the patent on eculizumab had expired on 1 May 2015, 20 year from the filing date. Although companies had been seeking 10 year patent terms from grant of the patent, the Brazilian courts have now confirmed that this minimum term is not available for mailbox patent applications made before the entering into force of the Brazil patent law. The mailbox patent term clock starts to tick from date of filing not from date of grant. INPI then moved to seek correction of mailbox patent terms or revocation of mailbox patents at the Brazil court. The Brazil patent office expects that more corrections to patent term mailbox patents may follow.

The court’s decision was reported erroneously by some media as a compulsory license. That it is not, but the decision to correct the term of protection is expected to open the door for biogenerics (biosimilars) of the product. Just like a compulsory licence would have done.

A PDF version of this post is available here.

Avatar photo
+ posts

Ellen ‘t Hoen, LLM PhD, is a lawyer and public health advocate with over 30 years of experience working on pharmaceutical and intellectual property policies.

More technical briefs

Continuing to ignore the problem of the know-how gap won’t make it go away.

The Covid-19 pandemic was a wake-up call for a variety of issues in access to medicines, one of which was finding a solution to...

The last mile: A few suggestions for the WHO Pandemic Agreement’s last two weeks of talks 

This technical briefing note is also available as a PDF here. On 16 April, the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and...

European Parliament’s amendments make the Regulation for EU-wide compulsory licensing difficult to use and need to be rolled back

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 March 2024, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on compulsory...

The European Parliament has now explicitly acknowledged the know-how problem too: time to include a workable solution in the draft Pandemic Accord.

This technical briefing note is also available as a PDF here. We have been calling attention to the problem of sharing know-how necessary for the...

Related Articles

Pharmaceutical patents and data exclusivity in an age of AI-driven drug discovery and development

This is an excerpt from a longer report on AI, medicines development and the patent system. Download the full report here (or by clicking...

Expanding local production is essential for pandemic preparedness. It requires, however, transfer of technology.

Madam co-chairs, delegates,  This very week, from 7 to 9 April the 3rd World Local Production Forum is taking place in Abu Dhabi. Actions towards...

Respect for intellectual property law includes respecting the flexibilities it contains to protect the public interest: ML&P’s opening statement to the INB

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. And for the latest draft of the pandemic agreementshared with us on 26 March. In particular, we...

Will Europe block the Pandemic Agreement because of one word?

This commentary originally appeared in the Brussels Times, and is available here. The Pandemic Agreement negotiations began in December of 2021. Sufficiently motivated by the...

Newsletter

Never miss a post! Sign up for ML&P's newsletter.

Recent Articles

The Pandemic Agreement is here

In December 2021, the member states of the World Health Organization decided “to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument...

Expanding local production is essential for pandemic preparedness. It requires, however, transfer of technology.

Madam co-chairs, delegates,  This very week, from 7 to 9 April the 3rd World Local Production Forum is taking place in Abu Dhabi. Actions towards...

Will Europe block the Pandemic Agreement because of one word?

This commentary originally appeared in the Brussels Times, and is available here. The Pandemic Agreement negotiations began in December of 2021. Sufficiently motivated by the...

“Mutually agreed terms and conditions,” says it all.

On 4 March, Politico reported that the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU) is expressing doubt that the Pandemic Agreement...

“This week, the medicines were not there”: What is at stake in the pandemic agreement

Earlier this week I listened to a testimony from a community worker at a maternity ward where HIV-positive women gave birth. 17 babies were...