Patents and Artificial Intelligence in Brazil: Challenges for the Examination of Inventions and INPI Public Consultation nº 03/2025
DOI:
10.16928/e20261501003Keywords:
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PATENTS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INPI INVENTIVE STEP SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSUREAbstract
The expansion of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning systems and generative models, has been transforming research, development, and innovation processes while creating new challenges for the patent system. In Brazil, the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) submitted to Public Consultation No. 03/2025 a draft of the Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications related to Artificial Intelligence. This article analyzes the consultation and the official consolidation of the submissions received, connecting institutional documents with national and international literature on inventorship, patentability, inventive step, the person skilled in the art, and sufficiency of disclosure. The study adopts a qualitative approach, applied nature, and exploratory-descriptive character, based on bibliographic and documentary research. The documentary corpus comprises the draft submitted for consultation and its official consolidation, which records 16 submissions, to which four additional submissions contained in the consultation’s supplementary documentation were added. The results of the documentary analysis reveal different positions concerning the taxonomy of AI-related inventions, human contribution to inventorship, disclosure of training data and processes, the definition of the person skilled in the art, and the assessment of inventive step. The analysis indicates the need to preserve the traditional requirements established by Law No. 9,279/1996 without establishing excessively rigid criteria or criteria dependent on specific technologies. The study concludes that Brazilian guidelines should prioritize technological neutrality, verifiable human contribution, the technical function of AI, sufficiency of disclosure proportional to the functional dependence of the solution, and contextual assessment of inventive step.
References
Aboy, M., Lath, A., Minssen, T., & Liddell, K. (2024). The sufficiency of disclosure of AI inventions. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 19(11), 834–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae063 Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae063
Abbott, Ryan Benjamin, I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law. Boston College Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 4, 2016, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2727884 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2727884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2727884
Barcellos, M. L. L. (2025). Patentes e inteligência artificial: Desafios transponíveis. Revista Rede de Direito Digital, Intelectual & Sociedade, 4(8), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.5380/rrddis.v4i8.99424 Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5380/rrddis.v4i8.99424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/rrddis.v4i8.99424
Brasil. (1996). Lei nº 9.279, de 14 de maio de 1996. Regula direitos e obrigações relativos à propriedade industrial. Presidência da República. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9279.htm.
Ebrahim, T. Y. (2020). Artificial intelligence inventions & patent disclosure. Penn State Law Review, 125(1), 147–200. Disponível em: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/fs/357/.
European Patent Office. (2026). T 0528/25 (Designation of inventor/DABUS) of 5 February 2026. Boards of Appeal. EPO. Disponível em: https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t250528eu1.
European Patent Office. (2026). Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. EPO. Disponível em: https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2026/index.html.
Ginsburg, J. C., & Budiardjo, L. A. (2019). Authors and machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(2), 343–448. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SF2MC24.
Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial. (2022). Inteligência artificial não pode ser indicada como inventora em pedido de patente. INPI. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/central-de-conteudo/noticias%202022/inteligencia-artificial-nao-pode-ser-indicada-como-inventora-em-pedido-de-patente.
Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial. (2025). Consulta Pública nº 03/2025: Diretrizes de Exame de Pedidos de Patente relacionados à Inteligência Artificial. INPI. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/servicos/patentes/consultas-publicas/consultas-publicas?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial. (2025). Minuta das Diretrizes de Exame de Pedidos de Patente relacionados à Inteligência Artificial. INPI. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/servicos/patentes/consultas-publicas/consultas-publicas.
Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial. (2026). Consulta pública sobre a minuta das Diretrizes de Exame de Pedidos de Patente relacionados à Inteligência Artificial: Consolidação das contribuições. INPI. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/servicos/patentes/consultas-publicas.
Machado, T. M., Winter, E., & Pereira, H. B. de B. (2025). Patentability of AI and global harmonization: An analysis of the current guidelines in Brazil and the IP5 offices. World Patent Information, 83, 102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2025.102400 Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2025.102400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2025.102400
Morandin, J. L. P. L., & Moura, A. M. M. de. (2024). Patentes em inteligência artificial no Brasil: Caracterização de um domínio tecnológico. Informação & Informação, 29(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.5433/1981-8920.2024v29n3p1 Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5433/1981-8920.2024v29n3p1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5433/1981-8920.2024v29n3p1
Oro Boff, S., Andrade, W., & Reginato, J. M. (2025). Desafios para a concessão de patentes a sistemas de inteligência artificial: Uma análise a partir de DABUS. Direito.UnB – Revista de Direito da Universidade de Brasília, 9(1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.26512/2357-80092025e53086 Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.26512/2357-80092025e53086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26512/2357-80092025e53086
Tull, S. Y., & Miller, P. E. (2018). Patenting artificial intelligence: Issues of obviousness, inventorship, and patent eligibility. RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law, 1(5), 313–322. Disponível em: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/files/nrf/nrfweb/imported/the-journal-of-robotics-artificial-intelligence-and-law.pdf.
United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2025). Revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions. USPTO. Disponível em: https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2025/revised-inventorship-guidance-ai-assisted-inventions.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence: Patent landscape report. WIPO. https://doi.org/10.34667/TIND.49740 Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.34667/TIND.49740.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2026). Patent Trends Update in GenAI. WIPO. Disponível em: https://www.wipo.int/en/web/patent-analytics/generative-ai/2025.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fabrisio Oliveira Santos (Autor)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais sobre seus trabalhos e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação. A licença aplicável a este artigo é a indicada nesta página e corresponde à política vigente na data de sua publicação.
Os autores estão autorizados a depositar a versão publicada em repositórios institucionais e temáticos, desde que indicada a publicação original nesta revista.
A PIDCC não cobra taxas de submissão, processamento ou publicação.
