By Daniel Costa

Industrial Property Gazette No. 2904, increases the limit applicable to priority processing requests for patent applications classified under section H04 of the International Patent Classification (IPC), a category associated with telecommunications technologies.

What has changed?

Under the new Ordinance, each applicant may file up to three priority processing requests per monthly cycle for patent applications classified under H04.
The previous limit was one request per monthly cycle. The new rule also applies to requests filed under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH).

In practical terms, the BPTO has increased from one to three the number of Telecom patent applications that each applicant may designate for priority examination every month.

How does the monthly limit work?

Available slots will continue to be allocated in chronological order, based on the filing date and time of each request.
Each monthly cycle:

• begins on the first day of the relevant calendar month;
• ends on the last day of that month; and
• cannot be extended.

Requests filed during the current monthly cycle, while Normative Ordinance BPTO/PR/DIRPA No. 05/2026 was still in force, will count toward the new limit.

Which cases remain outside the limit?

Certain specific priority processing categories remain exempt from the limitation, including cases involving:

• elderly applicants;
• applicants with disabilities;
• applicants suffering from a serious illness; and
• startups.

Implications for Telecom patent holders

The measure expands access to accelerated examination for telecommunications-related patent applications in Brazil.

For applicants with relevant H04 portfolios, the increase from one to three requests per monthly cycle provides greater flexibility in deciding which applications should be prioritized.

The availability of slots, however, remains subject to chronological filing order. Timely planning and submission of requests therefore remain important for companies seeking to accelerate the examination of their Telecom patents in Brazil.

Philippe Bhering and Jiuliano Maurer authored the Brazil chapter of Lexology Panoramic: Patents 2026, providing insights into patent law issues in Brazil, including the main recent developments and trends in the country’s patent landscape.

The chapter covers the growth of standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation before Brazilian courts, updates to the BPTO’s Industrial Designs Manual and 2026 Action Plan, the proposed Patent Term Adjustment mechanism, the regulation of alternative claim sets, and Brazil’s accession to the Budapest Treaty.

The publication offers a comparative overview of patent laws and practice across multiple jurisdictions.

Read the full chapter here: https://www.lexology.com/panoramic/workareas/patents

By Roberto Rangel and Jaqueline André

On August 25, 2026, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) published Public Call for Contributions No. 002/2026 to receive input on regulatory alternatives for the registration of electronic games as autonomous assets.

Contributions may be submitted through the Brasil Participativo platform until October 24, 2026.

The initiative follows the Brazilian Legal Framework for the Electronic Games Industry – Law No. 14,852/2024 – which added the granting of registration for electronic games to Article 2, item VI, of Law No. 9,279/1996 (the Brazilian Industrial Property Law), granting the BPTO authority to act on the matter.

Although the legislation expanded the BPTO’s institutional powers, it did not establish the instrument, administrative procedure or technical requirements necessary to implement this protection. The Public Call for Contributions seeks input from society, academia, the business sector and other interested parties on the subject.

The contributions received will support the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which will examine the need for regulation, its suitability and potential impacts, as well as the available alternatives for regulating the registration of electronic games.

The complexity of electronic games

Electronic games have a complex and hybrid nature, bringing together different intellectual property assets, including:

• computer programs;
• musical works;
• graphic artwork;
• characters;
• scripts and narratives;
• industrial designs;
• trademarks; and
• potentially patentable inventions.

These elements are currently protected under different legal regimes, administered by different authorities or subject to independent procedures. However, there is no mechanism that allows them to be identified as an integrated asset.

According to the Technical Note supporting the Public Call for Contributions, there is a regulatory gap between the authority granted to the BPTO by the Legal Framework for the Electronic Games Industry and the mechanisms required for its effective implementation.

The BPTO identifies two main categories of risks. On the one hand, maintaining the regulatory gap may widen the distance between the legal provision and its practical implementation, reducing the effectiveness of the public policy and delaying the availability of instruments compatible with the authority granted to the BPTO.

n the other hand, the adoption of a sui generis regulatory measure could create difficulties in terms of compatibility with international law and foreign legislation, potentially resulting in barriers to exports by the Brazilian electronic games industry.

The objectives identified in the Technical Note include:

• assessing whether the instruments currently available are adequate;
• identifying regulatory alternatives compatible with the Brazilian legal system;
• establishing clear, transparent and predictable administrative procedures;
• promoting greater administrative efficiency in the BPTO’s activities;
• observing the principles of legality, proportionality and legal certainty; and
• fostering a regulatory environment conducive to innovation and the development of Brazil’s electronic games industry.

The two regulatory alternatives

 Both alternatives involve the creation of a sui generis legal regime for the registration of an electronic game as an autonomous asset.

For purposes of the proposal, an electronic game would be defined as the integration of the computer program and the Game Design Document (GDD).

Constitutive registration

 Under the first alternative, the registration would have a constitutive nature. The right would arise upon the granting of the registration by the BPTO.

The procedure could include:

• formal examination;
• substantive analysis of technical requirements;
• opposition proceedings;
• appeals; and
• administrative invalidation proceedings.

This alternative would allow for a more detailed examination by the BPTO, but could also result in greater complexity, costs and processing times.

Declaratory registration

 Under the second alternative, the registration would have a declaratory nature. The right would arise from the creation of the electronic game itself, while the registration would serve to recognize and publicize it.

Under this model, the procedure would be limited to formal examination, which could reduce costs and provide greater processing speed.

Under neither alternative would existing protection mechanisms be replaced. Trademarks, patents, industrial designs and copyright-protected works would continue to be governed by their respective legislation.

Any potential sui generis right would apply exclusively to the electronic game considered as a unified asset.

International compatibility

 The Technical Note also states that, according to research conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), treaties and international agreements, as well as the legislation of other countries, do not provide for specific protection for electronic games in the same manner under consideration by the BPTO.

The registration of electronic games would therefore be a specific creation of Brazilian law. One of the regulatory challenges will be determining how to address the lack of correspondence with other legal systems in order to avoid potential barriers to exports by the Brazilian industry.

The Public Call for Contributions questionnaire

 The questionnaire attached to the Technical Note addresses several aspects of the potential protection regime.

Among other matters, interested parties are invited to consider:

• whether the current legal system is sufficient to protect electronic games;
• whether specific protection mechanisms should be created;
• whether protection should depend on registration if a sui generis right is established;
• which elements should comprise the subject matter of the protection;
• what the term of protection should be;
• whether substantive examination of originality should be required;
• whether external specialists or experts should be involved; and
• which documents should be submitted with an application for registration.

The elements that could comprise the subject matter of the sui generis protection include:

• the computer program;
• the Game Design Document;
• audiovisual elements;
• the narrative and script;
• characters;
• the soundtrack and other sound elements; and
• technical development documentation.

With respect to the term of protection, the questionnaire presents three alternatives:

• the same term applicable to computer programs: 50 years;
• the same term applicable to copyright: 70 years after the author’s death; or
• a specific term for electronic games.

If substantive examination is adopted to assess originality, the questionnaire also asks whether it would be reasonable to require technical support from an external specialist or expert. In that case, it would be necessary to determine who should bear the costs: the applicant or the party raising the dispute.

Regarding documentation, the alternatives include:

• submitting the complete Game Design Document;
• multimedia files;
• screenshots; and
• an encrypted file.

The questionnaire also asks whether the complete submission of the GDD could create risks involving the disclosure of strategic or confidential information.

How to participate

 Contributions must be submitted through the specific form available on the Brasil Participativo platform.

Responses must be entered in the field corresponding to each question and must specifically address the subject matter of that item.

• The following contributions will not be considered:
• submissions made after the deadline;
• submissions made through a method other than the designated form; or
• submissions that do not comply with the instructions of the Public Call for Contributions.

During the consultation period, the Technical Note, containing the technical basis and description of the regulatory alternatives, will be available in full on the BPTO’s website and on the Brasil Participativo platform.

After the Public Call for Contributions closes, the submissions will be forwarded to the areas responsible for preparing the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the registration of electronic games. The contributions will then be analyzed and consolidated by the BPTO.

Bhering Advogados monitors regulatory developments in intellectual property and their practical implications for companies and owners of intangible assets, including those operating in the technology and entertainment sectors.

Legal references

 Law No. 14,852 of May 3, 2024, which establishes the legal framework for the electronic games industry and amends Laws No. 8,313/1991, 8,685/1993 and 9,279/1996.

Law No. 9,279 of May 14, 1996, which regulates rights and obligations relating to industrial property.

By Roberto Rangel and Jaqueline André

On August 25, 2026, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) published Public Call for Contributions No. 002/2026 to receive input on regulatory alternatives for the registration of electronic games as autonomous assets.

Contributions may be submitted through the Brasil Participativo platform until October 24, 2026.

The initiative follows the Brazilian Legal Framework for the Electronic Games Industry – Law No. 14,852/2024 – which added the granting of registration for electronic games to Article 2, item VI, of Law No. 9,279/1996 (the Brazilian Industrial Property Law), granting the BPTO authority to act on the matter.

Although the legislation expanded the BPTO’s institutional powers, it did not establish the instrument, administrative procedure or technical requirements necessary to implement this protection. The Public Call for Contributions seeks input from society, academia, the business sector and other interested parties on the subject.

The contributions received will support the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which will examine the need for regulation, its suitability and potential impacts, as well as the available alternatives for regulating the registration of electronic games.

The complexity of electronic games

Electronic games have a complex and hybrid nature, bringing together different intellectual property assets, including:

• computer programs;
• musical works;
• graphic artwork;
• characters;
• scripts and narratives;
• industrial designs;
• trademarks; and
• potentially patentable inventions.

These elements are currently protected under different legal regimes, administered by different authorities or subject to independent procedures. However, there is no mechanism that allows them to be identified as an integrated asset.

According to the Technical Note supporting the Public Call for Contributions, there is a regulatory gap between the authority granted to the BPTO by the Legal Framework for the Electronic Games Industry and the mechanisms required for its effective implementation.

The BPTO identifies two main categories of risks. On the one hand, maintaining the regulatory gap may widen the distance between the legal provision and its practical implementation, reducing the effectiveness of the public policy and delaying the availability of instruments compatible with the authority granted to the BPTO.

On the other hand, the adoption of a sui generis regulatory measure could create difficulties in terms of compatibility with international law and foreign legislation, potentially resulting in barriers to exports by the Brazilian electronic games industry.

The objectives identified in the Technical Note include:

• assessing whether the instruments currently available are adequate;
• identifying regulatory alternatives compatible with the Brazilian legal system;
• establishing clear, transparent and predictable administrative procedures;
• promoting greater administrative efficiency in the BPTO’s activities;
• observing the principles of legality, proportionality and legal certainty; and
• fostering a regulatory environment conducive to innovation and the development of Brazil’s electronic games industry.

 

The two regulatory alternatives

 Both alternatives involve the creation of a sui generis legal regime for the registration of an electronic game as an autonomous asset.

For purposes of the proposal, an electronic game would be defined as the integration of the computer program and the Game Design Document (GDD).

 

Constitutive registration

 Under the first alternative, the registration would have a constitutive nature. The right would arise upon the granting of the registration by the BPTO.

The procedure could include:

• formal examination;
• substantive analysis of technical requirements;
• opposition proceedings;
• appeals; and
• administrative invalidation proceedings.

This alternative would allow for a more detailed examination by the BPTO, but could also result in greater complexity, costs and processing times.

 

Declaratory registration

 Under the second alternative, the registration would have a declaratory nature. The right would arise from the creation of the electronic game itself, while the registration would serve to recognize and publicize it.

Under this model, the procedure would be limited to formal examination, which could reduce costs and provide greater processing speed.

Under neither alternative would existing protection mechanisms be replaced. Trademarks, patents, industrial designs and copyright-protected works would continue to be governed by their respective legislation.

Any potential sui generis right would apply exclusively to the electronic game considered as a unified asset.

 

International compatibility

 The Technical Note also states that, according to research conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), treaties and international agreements, as well as the legislation of other countries, do not provide for specific protection for electronic games in the same manner under consideration by the BPTO.

The registration of electronic games would therefore be a specific creation of Brazilian law. One of the regulatory challenges will be determining how to address the lack of correspondence with other legal systems in order to avoid potential barriers to exports by the Brazilian industry.

 

The Public Call for Contributions questionnaire

 The questionnaire attached to the Technical Note addresses several aspects of the potential protection regime.

Among other matters, interested parties are invited to consider:

• whether the current legal system is sufficient to protect electronic games;
• whether specific protection mechanisms should be created;
• whether protection should depend on registration if a sui generis right is established;
• which elements should comprise the subject matter of the protection;
• what the term of protection should be;
• whether substantive examination of originality should be required;
• whether external specialists or experts should be involved; and
• which documents should be submitted with an application for registration.

The elements that could comprise the subject matter of the sui generis protection include:

• the computer program;
• the Game Design Document;
• audiovisual elements;
• the narrative and script;
• characters;
• the soundtrack and other sound elements; and
• technical development documentation.

With respect to the term of protection, the questionnaire presents three alternatives:

• the same term applicable to computer programs: 50 years;
• the same term applicable to copyright: 70 years after the author’s death; or
• a specific term for electronic games.

If substantive examination is adopted to assess originality, the questionnaire also asks whether it would be reasonable to require technical support from an external specialist or expert. In that case, it would be necessary to determine who should bear the costs: the applicant or the party raising the dispute.

Regarding documentation, the alternatives include:

• submitting the complete Game Design Document;
• multimedia files;
• screenshots; and
• an encrypted file.

The questionnaire also asks whether the complete submission of the GDD could create risks involving the disclosure of strategic or confidential information.

 

How to participate

 Contributions must be submitted through the specific form available on the Brasil Participativo platform.

Responses must be entered in the field corresponding to each question and must specifically address the subject matter of that item.

• The following contributions will not be considered:
• submissions made after the deadline;
• submissions made through a method other than the designated form; or
• submissions that do not comply with the instructions of the Public Call for Contributions.

During the consultation period, the Technical Note, containing the technical basis and description of the regulatory alternatives, will be available in full on the BPTO’s website and on the Brasil Participativo platform.

After the Public Call for Contributions closes, the submissions will be forwarded to the areas responsible for preparing the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the registration of electronic games. The contributions will then be analyzed and consolidated by the BPTO.

Bhering Advogados monitors regulatory developments in intellectual property and their practical implications for companies and owners of intangible assets, including those operating in the technology and entertainment sectors.

 

Legal references

 Law No. 14,852 of May 3, 2024, which establishes the legal framework for the electronic games industry and amends Laws No. 8,313/1991, 8,685/1993 and 9,279/1996.

Law No. 9,279 of May 14, 1996, which regulates rights and obligations relating to industrial property.

Bhering Advogados will once again take part in the ABPI 2026 Global Innovation and Intellectual Property Meeting, one of the most anticipated events in the IP calendar, scheduled for August 16 to 18, 2026, in Rio de Janeiro.
The event is designed as a true platform for dialogue between innovation, intellectual property, technology, and business, bringing together leading voices from across these fields.

Ahead of the main event, associate Júlia Strack was invited by the organizing committee of the CSD-ABPI Moot (Dispute Resolution Center of the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association) to serve as an Evaluating Arbitrator at its 5th edition, taking place on August 15 and 16, 2026. The CSD-ABPI Moot is the first arbitration competition in Brazil dedicated exclusively to Intellectual Property, offering law students and recent graduates an immersive experience in simulated arbitral proceedings.

During the Global Meeting, associate Carolina Sequerra will moderate the panel “From Idea to a Millions: Shaping Entrepreneurs”, bringing her expertise to a discussion focused on innovation and entrepreneurship within the IP ecosystem.
As a supporter of ABPI and of the annual meeting, Bhering Advogados reaffirms its ongoing commitment to strengthening the IP ecosystem in Brazil and fostering strategic dialogue among professionals, businesses, and innovators. We look forward to welcoming clients, partners, and colleagues at this year’s event.

Júlia Strack has been invited by the organizing committee of the CSD-ABPI Moot (Dispute Resolution Center of the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association) to serve as an Evaluating Arbitrator at its 5th edition, to be held on August 15–16, 2026, in Rio de Janeiro – ahead of the ABPI Global Innovation and IP Meeting.

The CSD-ABPI Moot is the first arbitration competition in Brazil dedicated exclusively to Intellectual Property. It offers law students and recent graduates an immersive simulation of arbitral proceedings based on a fictional case, reproducing the dynamics of a real arbitration hearing through in-person panels.

This year’s case involves a fictitious dispute between companies in the cosmetics sector, addressing allegations of trademark infringement, trade dress violations, unfair competition, and questions regarding arbitral jurisdiction – subjects directly connected to our firm’s areas of practice.

As an Evaluating Arbitrator, Júlia will join the arbitral tribunal for Panel 8, scheduled for August 15, at 5:15 PM, where she will question the competing teams and later share feedback to support their professional development.

Operation Targets Sale of Unlicensed Collectible Items

Bhering Advogados’ Anti-Counterfeiting Department participated took part in an enforcement operation carried out at a warehouse in the Mooca region, in the city of São Paulo, state of São Paulo, specializing in the sale of geek-culture decor items.

The action was conducted by DEIC/SP’s 1st Division for Intellectual Property Investigations, the state’s specialized unit for combating piracy, with the objective of curbing the commercialization of products that infringe intellectual property rights.

Thousands of Products Seized

During the operation, thousands of products were seized, including high-value decorative sword replicas along with other decor items commercialized without proper authorization from the rights holders. The items had an estimated value of over USD 50,000.

The geek-culture and collectibles market has grown substantially in Brazil in recent years, driven by strong fan communities and licensed merchandising deals. That same demand makes the segment a recurring target for counterfeiters seeking to profit from characters, designs, and brands they have no right to reproduce.

A Sustained Enforcement Partnership

Bhering Advogados’ Anti-Counterfeiting Department works in close collaboration with Brazilian authorities to strengthen enforcement and repression of intellectual property infringements, contributing to the protection of brands, rights holders, and consumers.