Polylaminin is a synthetic biological substance developed in the laboratory from a protein naturally produced by the body called laminin, with promising potential for the treatment of acute spinal cord injuries that cause paralysis. Behind this innovation is researcher Tatiana Sampaio, a Brazilian scientist whose research gained significant recognition and who sought national and international protection through the patent system.

In interviews, the researcher revealed that, due to federal funding cuts at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), she ended up paying the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) fees out of her own pocket to maintain the patent in Brazil.

Abroad, Tatiana reported that she also received no institutional support and, therefore, was unable to obtain international protection in the claimed territories: the United States and Europe.

However, the problems appear not to have been solely financial. In addition to administrative abandonment for failure to pay annuities in Europe (EP2326667A1), there was a dismissal for failure to submit required documents in a Brazilian application (PI 0704128-4) and abandonment for failure to comply with an office action in the United States (US2011172159A1). As a result, of the four patent applications filed in Brazil and abroad, only one in which the intrepid researcher is listed as inventor remains in force until 2028 (PI 0805852-0) in Brazil.

On the same subject, the Brazilian laboratory Cristália filed two patent applications in Brazil relating to the process of extraction, purification, and polymerization of laminin, which are still pending examination before the INPI (BR11 2025 012354-8 and BR 10 2022 026276-4).

The polylaminin case highlights a structural and very common problem within the Brazilian public system. Without centralized management and experience in IP assets, there is no predictability regarding costs, deadlines, or the duration of protection, whether national or international. As a result, rights are lost and strategic innovations fail to generate economic returns for the public entities that created them, ultimately harming future investment in innovation.

For these reasons, and in order to ensure effective protection of the asset, it is essential to rely on specialized legal counsel with specific experience in patent protection in Brazil and abroad, ensuring an appropriate strategy aligned with the holder’s objectives. Araripe Advogados has been active for over 40 years in the protection of intellectual assets, including patents, combining technical expertise and strategic vision in the management of national and international projects.

One of the greatest challenges in addressing electronic games lies in explaining their technical and legal concepts to individuals who do not necessarily play or have had direct contact with video games. With this in mind, it is worthwhile to return to the beginning.

The year was 2001, and you were playing Tetris on one of the first mobile phone models. Geometric shapes descended on the screen, and your mission was to fit them together in the best possible way, without exceeding the limit line. The score increased according to your patience and perseverance, until the next phone call interrupted the game.

For some, it was merely a way to fill the minutes of delay before a medical appointment that, even today, tends to run late (after all, medicine is no exact science). For others, it was a brief escape from reality, whether from a complex family issue or from the boredom of a school class on subjects of little practical relevance to professional life, despite being required in exams.

Games have always occupied this ambiguous space between escapism and simple entertainment. Over time, however, they have become increasingly sophisticated systems, incorporating more complex rules, subtle and often imperceptible monetization strategies, and refined mechanisms for retaining player attention. Although some of these methods may be ethically questionable, their practical effects are undeniable. The electronic gaming industry has reached impressive revenue figures and is expected to generate approximately USD 197 billion in the coming years.

In this context, both large corporations and independent developers have begun applying typical gaming concepts across virtually all markets. This can be observed in educational platforms seeking to make learning more engaging, in social networks competing for every second of screen time, in e-commerce platforms encouraging recurring consumption decisions, and, naturally, in entertainment itself, which creates parallel realities as lighter alternatives to everyday life.

And nothing, absolutely nothing, in the world of games is free.

Like a book that tells the story of a young wizard who bears a scar on his forehead and becomes an orphan due to the injustices committed by a villain whose name must not be spoken, e-games are built upon narratives, social and ethical rules, psychological stimuli, and clearly defined legal assets. These elements are carefully designed to create alternative worlds, sometimes quite literally, in which entertainment arises from previously planned and programmed choices. Stories, decisions, consequences, rewards, and punishments form the basis of this ecosystem, always with one central objective: to retain the player and encourage continued engagement.

In this scenario, gameplay, or game mechanics, explains how the game operates in practice. In Tetris, for example, gameplay consists of positioning geometric shapes by fitting pieces together, much like children’s building blocks, in order to prevent them from exceeding the screen limit and causing the game to collapse.

In shooting or war games, gameplay tends to be more complex. It involves teamwork, individual and collective strategies defined through player interaction, as well as quick reflexes, interpretation of opponents’ behavior, and real-time decision-making to accomplish missions or objectives.

For professionals working in the field of Intellectual Property, the universe of e-games is particularly interesting because, despite the sector’s specific characteristics, the applicable legal institutions remain essentially the same. What changes is how these institutions are manifested and how each element is understood by those responsible for legal protection.

It is therefore not surprising that neither narrative nor gameplay, in isolation, is subject to legal protection in Brazil. Protection applies to the form in which these ideas are expressed: source code, graphics, characters and their distinctive elements, soundtracks, interface design, characteristic visual elements, and the narrative itself, provided it is considered in its concrete expression and not as a mere abstract idea, in addition to traditional industrial property rights, under Brazilian law.

Most contemporary games also employ sophisticated progression and reward systems. Levels, achievements, rankings, skins, virtual currencies, and periodic challenges, whether daily or weekly, are designed to keep players engaged, reduce abandonment, and maximize monetization.

These dynamics resemble the famous “final episode” of a series that ends with an irresistible cliffhanger, leading viewers to watch “just one more,” until time simply disappears.

Level systems, in particular, often grant points, status, or benefits when certain objectives are achieved and maintained, encouraging players to continue in order not to lose what they have already earned. A classic example outside the gaming universe is Duolingo, a language-learning platform that transforms education into a daily game. Users build their status through consecutive-day streaks, which can be shared with others or on social media, reinforcing engagement through social recognition.

If we apply this logic of gamification, that is, transforming activities into game-like experiences, to the field of Intellectual Property, similar effects may be observed. A faster and more predictable examination system for trademark applications at the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) would function as an institutional reward mechanism. The shorter the response time, the greater the incentive for entrepreneurs to file applications in a regular and strategic manner.

The impact would be twofold. On one hand, there would be greater formalization of intangible assets and increased legal certainty in business activities. On the other, the public authority itself would benefit from increased fee collection, creating a virtuous cycle in which efficiency generates engagement, and engagement reinforces the system. As in games, when progress is perceived as possible and measurable, users remain playing.

This text was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence.

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) has proposed the regulation of Alternative Claims (Alternative QRs) for patent applications, allowing the submission of different versions of claims within the same petition during the first technical examination on the merits. Although this practice has already been accepted, there had been no clear regulation on the matter until now.

The proposal aims to provide greater flexibility to the technical examination, as well as to align the Brazilian patent system with international practices. Among the main guidelines, the following should be highlighted:

• the possibility of submitting up to three alternative versions of claims;
• restrictions on the expansion of the scope of protection originally requested;
• the obligation to clearly explain the differences between the versions submitted; and
• the maintenance of the same inventive concept already considered in the search carried out.

The INPI also points out that the adoption of Alternative QRs may contribute to reducing the overall time required for patent grants. However, it emphasizes the need for special technical care in drafting the claims in order to avoid inconsistencies or risks to the scope of protection.

The proposal represents a relevant advancement in terms of predictability and legal certainty in the patent granting process in Brazil, while bringing the country closer to practices already consolidated in other jurisdictions.