Written by Eng. José Robeto Cunha, patent specialist at CNV IP Law Firm
Since the beginning of 2025, the Brazilian patent system has operated under a new and consolidated dynamic. Brazil’s accession to the Global PPH (GPPH) and the full validity of Ordinance 48/2024, which expanded the annual capacity to 3,200 applications, have gone from being a novelty to becoming an operational reality for the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO). The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program is no longer a promise of modernization, but rather the central and established pillar governing the accelerated processing of patents in the country.
In this new reality, the bilateral agreement with China (CNIPA) highlights its unique strategic importance. The decision to maintain and renew a specific Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), even with both countries integrated into the GPPH, demonstrates that the partnership has a value that transcends the global framework. The numbers justify this attention: patent applications of Chinese origin jumped from 3% in 2018 to 10% in early 2025, consolidating China among the three largest foreign applicants in Brazil.
It is precisely at the intersection of these two systems that sophisticated legal engineering resides, especially in the use of Chinese Utility Models as an acceleration mechanism.
The Systems Paradox: Brazilian Rigor vs. Chinese Speed
The dilemma that intrigues experts is clear:
- In Brazil, the system is guided by rigor. The Industrial Property Law (IPL) requires that every application, including Utility Models, be subject to a full substantive examination, which carefully evaluates novelty and inventiveness. There are no exceptions.
- In China, the logic is speed as an industrial policy. By law, a Utility Model does not undergo substantive examination, but rather a preliminary examination that evaluates formalities and “obvious defects.” The goal is to protect incremental innovations in masse and in record time (6 to 12 months), stimulating local innovation.
The central question: how can a right granted under a simplified examination enable access to the fast track in a jurisdiction that values rigorous examination?
The Regulatory Key: The Focus on Results that Connects Two Systems
The answer lies in the pragmatic wording of Ordinance 48/2024. The Brazilian standard does not limit itself to the foreign examination method; what matters is the result. The eligibility criterion, according to Article 2, is the last action by the partner office that finds at least one claim patentable or admissible.
Thus, the granting of a Utility Model by the CNIPA is, by definition, the final step confirming the admissibility of the application in China, fulfilling the literal requirement of the Brazilian rule. It is a solution that allows the BPTO to leverage the work of 35 partner offices without the complex task of validating each substantive process individually. The message is clear: “it doesn’t matter how it was allowed; what matters is that it was allowed. With this, the application enters the priority queue. From this point on, our rules apply.”
This mechanism preserves the fundamental pillar of the system: the sovereignty of the BPTO. The Brazilian examiner maintains full autonomy to conduct a complete and independent substantive examination and may reject the application if they disagree with the Chinese decision. To ensure the integrity of this sovereign analysis, one element is crucial: the Claim Correspondence Table. This mandatory document acts as a harmonization mechanism, forcing the applicant to demonstrate that the scope of the claims in Brazil is equal to or more restricted than that permitted in China. This prevents acceleration from being used for a broader scope and ensures that the Brazilian examiner exercises his autonomy over the correct subject, preserving the logic of work-sharing.
How the PPH Has Worked in Practice (as of August 2025)
BPTO data through the end of August 2025 confirms that the program is operating at high performance for those who use it, but it also reveals a crucial strategic point. Although the procedural pace is impressive, with 1,364 applications filed, 1,251 already analyzed, and 572 with a final technical decision, these numbers should be viewed considering the program’s total capacity, which is 3,200 slots for 2025. With two-thirds of the year gone, less than half of the capacity has been utilized. This demonstrates that although the gateway to the fast-track is accessible and efficient (with 94% of applications admitted without office actions), the PPH still operates with significant idle capacity (42% of the annual total). Therefore, more than a high-volume operational reality, the PPH currently represents an underutilized opportunity, with considerable room for more applicants to benefit from the accelerated procedural process.
Procedural Speed vs. Substantive Risk: The Strategic Calculus
Using a Chinese Utility Model as the basis for the PPH offers a clear procedural advantage: speed. Granting in China, which occurs within 6 to 12 months, acts as a trigger that allows the applicant to access the BPTO’s priority queue years earlier than would be possible if it depended on the completion of a substantive examination in another jurisdiction. This advance can represent a decisive competitive advantage.
However, this accelerated “voucher” does not guarantee a smooth process. The Brazilian examiner, aware that the application has not undergone a rigorous merits examination, will analyze it with greater scrutiny. This translates into less consideration to the CNIPA’s opinion and a real chance that the application will face substantive objections that could lead to its rejection.
The PPH delivers what it promises: speed in the process. The outcome, in turn, will always depend on the merits of the invention. Therefore, the best strategy is to combine the benefit of acceleration with robust technical preparation. A preliminary analysis of the application from the perspective of the Brazilian IP Law, for example, allows us to anticipate issues and strengthen the arguments for examination in Brazil. Alignment with the client on this dynamic is key: the agility of the PPH, combined with a well-founded case, is the formula for converting procedural acceleration into a successfully granted patent.
Sources: