Boosting Brazilian Deep Tech: A Bayh-Dole-Inspired Mechanism for University Spin-offs and National Innovation

Brazil’s innovation ecosystem, while promising and showing significant progress, faces a persistent challenge in effectively converting academic-generated intellectual property (IP) into commercially viable university spin-offs . This gap impedes economic growth and limits the social impact of public research investments.

This paper proposes a comprehensive national mechanism, called the “Deeptech Incentive”, inspired by the transformative Bayh-Dole Act of the US. The main objective is to empower Brazilian universities to own, manage and commercialize IP resulting from publicly funded research, with a specific focus on the high-potential deep tech sector.

By fostering a more robust framework for technology transfer, the Deeptech Incentive is expected to significantly increase the number and success rate of deep tech spin-offs , boost private sector investment in Research and Development (R&D), generate new high-value jobs, and create a sustainable financial return cycle for Brazilian academic institutions. This joint effort aims to strengthen the country’s position in the global innovation landscape, aligning with economic and technological development goals.

Brazil’s Innovation Ambition and the Deep Tech Imperative

Brazil has made remarkable progress in its innovation journey, consolidating its position as a leader in Latin America. The 2024 Global Innovation Index (GII) ranks Brazil 50th globally, the highest in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 6th among upper-middle-income economies. This position reflects a solid foundation in areas such as business sophistication, knowledge and technology production, and creative products. However, persistent challenges remain, especially in converting research output into commercial success and in overall R&D investment.

Deep tech , characterized by its scientific complexity, long development cycles and high potential for disruptive impact, is essential to address major social challenges and boost long-term economic competitiveness. For Brazil, fostering a vibrant deep tech ecosystem is essential to diversify its economy, reduce external dependence and achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. This priority is fully in line with the objectives of the Nova Indústria Brasil (NIB) program.

This paper emerges as a direct contribution from the discussions held at the II FINEP Deep Tech Seminar on June 27, 2025, where the critical need for a mechanism to bridge the gap between university-generated patents and university spin-offs was emphasized. The paper is intended to serve as a detailed proposition for the National Deep Tech Policy Working Group, aiming to inform and shape a cohesive national policy.

The Unrealized Potential: Analyzing the Commercialization Gap for University IP in Brazil

A. Patenting Trends in Brazil: A Macro View

Despite its regional leadership in innovation, Brazil’s patenting activity, especially by residents, remains modest on a global scale. In 2023, Brazil filed 7,298 patent applications worldwide (including resident and foreign filings), with the majority (68.1%) of resident filings focused on the domestic market. This number contrasts sharply with global leaders such as China (1.64 million applications) or the US (518,364 applications). Furthermore, in 2006, less than 20% of patent applications filed in Brazil were of domestic origin, with the majority of filings corresponding to existing foreign cases.

A crucial underlying factor for this situation is Brazil’s relatively low investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP. Although Brazil has increased its R&D spending to 1.3% of GDP over the past decade, recent data from 2020 show a figure of 1.14% of GDP, down from 1.34% in 2015. This figure is significantly lower than that of advanced economies such as South Korea (4.8%), Japan (3.3%) or the US (3.4%) in 2020. Latin America as a whole invests just 0.6% of GDP in R&D, less than a quarter of the OECD average.

Brazil’s 50th global ranking in the GII suggests a relatively strong innovation capacity compared to its R&D investment figures. This apparent discrepancy points to an “innovation paradox,” where Brazil produces more innovation outputs than would typically be predicted by its R&D inputs. However, the low level of patenting by residents relative to global leaders and the declining R&D/GDP ratio indicate systemic inefficiencies or a significant gap in the commercialization of this innovation.

Brazil’s historical dependence on foreign technology protection reinforces that the challenge is not limited to increasing R&D spending, but also to maximizing the return on existing investments by improving the conversion of research into tangible IP and commercial products. This situation underscores that simply increasing R&D funding may not be sufficient without complementary policies that improve the commercialization pathway for domestically generated IP, especially from public research institutions.

Table 1 and Table 2 below illustrate the situation of R&D investment and the distribution of patent applications in Brazil.

Table 1: R&D Spending as % of GDP: Brazil vs. Selected Countries/Regions (2015-2020/2021)

Country/Region	2015 (R&D as % of GDP)	2020/2021 (R&D as % of GDP)
Brazil	1.34%	1.14%
Argentina	0.62%	0.46% (2019)
Chile	0.4%	0.3%
Mexico	0.43%	0.3%
South Korea	4.23% (2015)	4.8% (2020)
Japan	3.29% (2015)	3.3% (2020)
USA	2.74% (2015)	3.4% (2020)
OECD average	2.38% (2015)	>2.4% (2020)
Latin America and Caribbean Media	0.63% (2015)	0.24% (2021)

Table 2: Patent Applications in Brazil by Residents vs. Non-Residents (Selected Years)

Year	Resident Requests	Non-Resident Applications
2012	4,798	25,637
2013	4,959	25,925
2014	4,659	25,683
2015	4.641	25,578
2016	5,200	22.810
2017	5,480	20.178
2018	4,980	19,877
2019	5,464	19,932
2020	5,280	19,058
2021	4.666	19,566

B. The Role of Brazilian Universities in Patent Generation

Brazilian universities and public Institutes of Science and Technology (ICTs) are prominent players in the national patenting landscape. The 2024 INPI Resident Patent Filing Rankings show that a significant portion of the top 50 resident filers are federal universities and institutes. For example, the Federal University of Campina Grande (3rd, with 86 filings), the Federal University of Paraíba (4th, with 76 filings), UFMG (5th, with 71 filings) and UNICAMP (6th, with 68 filings) consistently rank among the highest-ranked. The Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG) stands out for having two-thirds of its 31 patent applications in 2024 filed in partnership with companies, a “very difficult feat in Brazil.”

The high ranking of Brazilian universities in resident patent filings clearly demonstrates that these institutions are primary engines of invention, possessing a strong scientific and research base. However, the observation that these patents often become a “liability” rather than generating business, impact and return, suggests a critical disconnect. This implies that while the capacity to generate IP exists, the mechanisms for its subsequent commercialization into viable businesses, especially

deep tech spin -offs , are insufficient. The fact that even successful university-industry collaborations, such as those at FURG, are highlighted as exceptions, reinforces the systemic bottleneck in technology transfer.

The central issue, therefore, is not a deficit in inventive capacity within academia, but rather a structural or policy gap that prevents this capacity from fully translating into economic value. This is particularly true for deep tech technologies , which, being high-risk and high-reward, require substantial capital and expert support to mature into market-ready ventures.

Table 3 presents the main Brazilian public universities and ICTs in the ranking of applicants for invention patents.

Table 3: Top Brazilian Public Universities/ICTs in Resident Patent Applications (2024)

Ranking	Depositor	Deposits	Participation (%)
3	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINA GRANDE PB	86	1.23
4	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PARAIBA	76	1.09
5	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS - UFMG	71	1.02
6	STATE UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS - UNICAMP	68	0.97
8	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO - UFRJ	59	0.84
10	UNIVERSITY OF SAO PAULO - USP	54	0.77
11	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PERNAMBUCO - UFPE	50	0.72
12	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PELOTAS - UFPEL	47	0.67
13	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF CEARA	45	0.64
14	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SERGIPE - UFS	44	0.63
16	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RURAL PERNAMBUCO - UFRPE	43	0.62
17	STATE UNIVERSITY OF LONDRINA	38	0.54
18	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF UBERLANDIA - UFU	38	0.54
20	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA - UFSC	37	0.53
21	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF VICOSA - UFV	37	0.53
23	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PARANA - UFPR	34	0.49
24	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PIAUI - UFPI	33	0.47
25	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE - FURG	31	0.44
28	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MARANHÃO	27	0.39
31	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF JUIZ DE FORA - UFJF	25	0.36
32	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF LAVRAS	24	0.34
33	STATE UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO - UNESP	24	0.34
34	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF BAHIA	23	0.33
35	FLUMINENSE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY - UFF	23	0.33
36	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF ALAGOAS	22	0.31
38	UNIVERSITY OF CAXIAS DO SUL FOUNDATION	21	0.30
39	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL - UFRGS	20	0.29
40	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SAO JOAO DEL REI	20	0.29
41	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO NORTE - UFRN	19	0.27
42	FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA MARIA	19	0.27
46	UNIVERSITY OF BRASILIA FOUNDATION	17	0.24
48	TIRADENTES UNIVERSITY	17	0.24

Source: INPI, Economic Affairs Advisory Board.

C. The "Passive" Problem: Why College IP Often Stalls

The IP generated by universities often becomes a “liability” rather than generating business, impact and returns. This is a critical problem that the “Deeptech Incentive” seeks to address.

This "passive" state can be attributed to several interconnected factors:

• Lack of Clear Commercialization Mandate and Incentives: Universities may lack a strong institutional mandate or sufficient incentives (beyond academic publishing) to actively pursue commercialization of their research.

  
  

• Insufficient Capacity of Technology Innovation Hubs - NIT: Existing Technology Innovation Hubs - NIT often face limitations in terms of resources, specialized expertise (e.g. in legal aspects, business development and market analysis for complex deep tech ) and capacity to effectively identify, protect, commercialize and license deep tech IP .

  
  

• Funding Gap for Early-Stage Deep Tech : Deep tech ventures often require substantial and patient capital, which traditional venture capital may be hesitant to provide at very early stages, especially for university spin-offs with unproven business models and long development cycles.

  
  

• Cultural Divide: A persistent cultural gap often exists between academic environments (focused on fundamental discovery and peer-reviewed publication) and entrepreneurial ecosystems (driven by market validation, rapid iteration, and commercialization).

  
  

• Complex Bureaucracy and IP Ownership Issues: Ambiguities in IP ownership (e.g., between individual inventors, universities, and public funding agencies) or burdensome bureaucratic processes can discourage commercialization efforts and create friction in the technology transfer process.

The Bayh-Dole Act: A Model for University-Led Commercialization

A. Core Principles and Objectives

The Bayh-Dole Act (Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980) fundamentally changed the ownership of IP by transferring it from the U.S. federal government to universities, companies, or non-profit organizations that receive federal funding. This was a critical change from a previous system in which the government held ownership of approximately 30,000 patents, of which only 5% resulted in new or improved products, due to a lack of government funding for development and commercialization.

The policy and purpose of the Act are to "promote the utilization of inventions resulting from federally supported research or development," "encourage maximum participation by small businesses," "promote collaboration between commercial enterprises and nonprofit organizations, including universities," and "promote the commercialization and public availability of inventions." The Act uses patent ownership as an incentive for the development and commercialization of federally funded R&D by the private sector.

The main provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act require universities to apply for patent protection and secure commercialization through licensing. They must disclose each relevant invention to a federal agency within a reasonable time, file patent applications before the statutory deadlines, and attempt to develop and commercialize the invention. Excess revenue from licensing (after expenses and payments to inventors) must be used to support scientific research or education, and a portion of royalties must be shared with the inventors. Priority in licensing should generally be given to small businesses. The government retains a nontransferable, irrevocable, nonexclusive, fully paid license for its own use and rights to “march in” under specified conditions, such as nonuse or to address health/safety concerns.

B. Transformative Impact on the United States

The Bayh-Dole Act spurred robust academic technology transfer activities. In the first two decades after its enactment (1980–2002), U.S. universities saw a tenfold increase in their patenting. The number of universities granted a patent rose from 55 in 1976 to 240 in 2006. In 2015, 6,680 patents were granted to universities, a significant increase from 390 in 1980. From 1996 to 2020, U.S. universities disclosed 554,000 inventions and were granted 141,000 U.S. patents.

The Act has directly led to the formation of thousands of advanced technology start-ups , especially in the life sciences sector. On average, three new companies start-ups and two new products are launched in the United States every day as a result of university inventions brought to market. More than 2,200 companies were created to exploit university technology in the first two decades.

This activity boosted U.S. GDP by as much as $1 trillion and contributed $1.9 trillion to U.S. gross industrial output. More than 200 drugs and vaccines have been developed through public-private partnerships since 1980. The Act is widely praised as a significant factor in the "competitive revival" of the United States in the 1990s and was called "arguably the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in America in the last half century" by The Economist.

The fundamental shift in IP ownership from the federal government to universities, coupled with clear incentives (mandatory royalty sharing for inventors and reinvestment of surplus revenue in research and education), created a powerful and self-reinforcing feedback loop. Universities, now with a direct financial interest and a clear mandate to commercialize, were motivated to invest in and professionalize their Technological Innovation Centers (NIT).

This direct link between research output and potential financial return has motivated academic institutions to engage in technology transfer more vigorously and strategically. The dramatic increase in academic patenting, invention disclosures, and the formation of thousands of spin-offs is a direct and measurable consequence of this incentivized ownership model.

For Brazil, this suggests that simply increasing R&D funding (which is already comparatively low) without addressing the underlying ownership and incentive structures for universities may not produce the desired commercialization results. A Bayh-Dole-inspired mechanism, by empowering universities and incentivizing their engagement in commercialization, could unlock the latent commercial potential of Brazil’s strong academic research base and address the problem of “passive” IP.

C. Lessons Learned and Adaptability for Brazil

The Bayh-Dole Act provides a robust framework, but its direct transplantation to Brazil is not feasible due to differences in the legal, economic and cultural contexts.

Key Lessons:

• Clarity of Ownership: Assigning clear IP ownership to universities is critical to effective technology transfer.

  
  

• Incentives Matter: Financial incentives for both institutions and individual inventors are crucial to motivating commercialization efforts.

  
  

• Active Commercialization Mandate: Universities need a clear mandate and sufficient resources to actively pursue technology transfer, going beyond a purely academic focus.

  
  

• Public-Private Collaboration: The Bayh-Dole Act fostered closer collaboration between academia and industry, which is essential for the successful development and commercialization of deep tech .

  
  

Adaptability for Brazil: Brazil’s “liability” problem directly mirrors the challenges faced by the U.S. prior to the Bayh-Dole Act. A Brazilian adaptation should carefully consider:

• The existing legal and regulatory framework for IP and public financing in Brazil.

  
  

• The current state and capacity of Brazilian Technological Innovation Centers - NIT, and how they can be strengthened.

  
  

• The deep tech ecosystem and the venture capital scenario, still in its infancy but growing, in Brazil.

  
  

• The strategic role of federal development agencies such as FINEP and BNDES in catalyzing this transformation.

"Deeptech Incentive": A Proposed Mechanism for University Spin-offs in Brazil

A. Fundamental Principles for the Brazilian Context

The “Deeptech Incentive” would be a comprehensive national policy framework, potentially instituted through a new legislative act or a series of coordinated executive orders. Its design must carefully adapt the core principles of the Bayh-Dole Act to Brazil’s specific legal, economic, and cultural realities. This includes navigating existing public administration laws, intellectual property regulations, and the distinct funding mechanisms for public universities and research institutions.

Recognizing that deep tech ventures inherently involve longer gestation periods, higher capital requirements, and higher inherent risks compared to other innovations, the mechanism should incorporate specific provisions to support these characteristics. This differentiation is crucial to fostering their successful development and commercialization.

B. Fundamental Pillars of the Mechanism

1. Clear IP Ownership and Management Structure

The cornerstone of the “Deeptech Incentive” would be the explicit and unequivocal attribution of ownership of intellectual property generated from publicly funded research to the universities or public science and technology institutes (STIs) that conducted the research. This empowerment is crucial for institutions to be able to manage and commercialize their inventions effectively, overcoming the problem of “passive” IP.

The mechanism would require and provide dedicated resources for universities to establish or significantly strengthen their Technology Innovation Hubs (TIBs). These Technology Innovation Hubs (TIBs) would be responsible for:

• Proactive IP Identification and Disclosure: Implement clear, standardized, and incentivized processes for researchers to disclose their inventions.

  
  

• Strategic Patenting: Orient patenting decisions not only towards academic recognition, but primarily based on commercial potential and market viability. Patent applications by Brazilian residents are low compared to global leaders, and although universities are among the top filers, the focus should shift to generating commercially viable patents .

  
  

• Licensing and Spin-off Facilitation : Provide specialized expertise in licensing negotiations, develop robust business models for deep tech , and actively facilitate the formation of spin-off companies .

  
  

Table 4 is essential to demonstrate a deep understanding of the core mechanisms of the Bayh-Dole Act and how its principles can be practically adapted to the Brazilian context. It provides a clear, concise and comparative overview for policymakers, highlighting the structure of the proposed mechanism and its alignment (or necessary divergence) with a globally recognized successful model. This directly addresses the user’s request to think “something similar to the Bayh-Dole Act, but with a dynamic that makes sense in Brazil today.”

Table 4: Bayh-Dole Act (USA) vs. “Deeptech Incentive” Proposal (Brazil) – Comparative Provisions

Disposition Area	Bayh-Dole Act (USA)	"Deeptech Incentive" Proposal (Brazil)
IP Ownership	The university holds IP for federally funded research.	The university holds the IP for publicly funded (federal/state) research.
Disclosure Requirements	The contractor discloses the invention to the federal agency within a reasonable time.	Standardized and mandatory disclosure to Technological Innovation Centers - NIT within universities.
Licensing Priorities	Priority for small businesses; "substantially manufactured" in the US for exclusive licenses.	Priority for small/medium-sized Brazilian deep tech companies ; "substantially developed/produced" in Brazil for exclusive licenses.
Revenue Sharing	Surplus revenue supports research/education; part goes to inventors.	Clear guidelines for reinvestment in research/education; mandatory and attractive share for inventors.
Government Rights ("March-in")	Non-exclusive, irrevocable license; march-in rights for non-public use/need.	Non-exclusive, irrevocable license for government use; "march-in" rights for non-use/public need (e.g., national security, public health emergencies).
Commercialization Obligation	The university should try to develop and commercialize.	Universities with a mandate to actively pursue commercialization, with performance metrics.

2. Dedicated Financing and Investment Channels

It is crucial to establish specialized public funds (e.g. managed by FINEP, BNDES or state innovation agencies) specifically tailored for early-stage deep tech ventures emerging from universities. This directly addresses the critical “valley of death” gap in funding that often stifles promising academic innovations.

FINEP and BNDES should be positioned as anchor investors and facilitators, leveraging their existing instruments (e.g. economic grants, venture capital funds) to de-risk early-stage investments and attract follow-on private capital. It is crucial to encourage the development of corporate venture capital arms and specialized angel investment networks focused on university spin-offs .

Deep tech , by its nature, requires significant and long-term capital before commercial viability is fully established. Traditional private venture capital in Brazil may be hesitant to take on such high risks at such early stages. Public development agencies such as FINEP and BNDES are in a unique position to provide the patient and catalytic capital needed to bridge this “valley of death.”

By strategically deploying funds, these agencies can enable technology validation, prototype development, and demonstration of market potential, thereby de-risking the investment to later-stage private equity. This approach is not just about providing funds; it is about creating a sustainable pipeline of deep tech opportunities that can eventually attract the larger private investments needed to scale and achieve significant economic impact.

3. Incentives for Academic Entrepreneurs

It is essential to implement a legally binding and attractive percentage of royalties and/or equity (from spin-offs ) to be shared directly with inventors. This directly incentivizes faculty to disclose their inventions and actively participate in commercialization efforts, mirroring a key success factor of the Bayh-Dole Act.

There is a need to develop and implement policies that formally recognize and reward entrepreneurial activities (e.g., patenting, licensing, spin-off creation , mentoring) in academic career progression, tenure, and promotion decisions. Mechanisms should be provided so that faculty can take sabbaticals or reduce their teaching load to pursue spin-off development without compromising their academic standing.

4. Fostering University-Industry Collaboration

It is essential to promote and simplify legal and contractual frameworks for joint research agreements, co-development projects and sponsored research between universities and industry. This can lead to IP that is “born commercial” due to early industry input and market alignment.

It is crucial to systematically use the INPI's "Technological Radar" and the "Depositor Rankings" to identify:

• Strategic Research Areas: Identify deep tech fields where Brazil has emerging or established strengths or strategic interests (e.g., biotechnology, biodiversity, artificial intelligence, chemistry, mechanical engineering).

  
  

• Potential Industry Partners: Identify companies (resident and non-resident) that are highly active in these deep tech fields and that could be ideal partners for universities. For example, Petrobras, Stellantis, and Robert Bosch are the top resident patent filers, while Qualcomm, Huawei, and BASF are the top non-resident filers, indicating their technological focus and potential for collaboration.

  
  

• University-Industry Success Models: Analyze existing successful collaborations (such as the trajectories of UFMG, Unicamp and also the partnerships of FURG, where two thirds of its patents were with companies) to identify and replicate best practices.

  
  

INPI’s technology radar data and applicant rankings are not just static information; they represent strategic intelligence that can be actively utilized. By analyzing patenting activity by specific technology fields and identifying the top resident and non-resident companies in those fields, policymakers and Núcleos de Inovação Tecnológica (NIT) can move beyond passive IP disclosure to a proactive, data-driven approach to building partnerships.

For example, if Brazilian universities demonstrate strength in biotechnology and a multinational such as BASF (a leading non-resident patent filer) is active in chemistry, this suggests a natural alignment for deep tech collaboration . This approach ensures that research is not only cutting-edge but also market-relevant. This can significantly increase the relevance and commercial viability of university research by aligning it with industry needs and market opportunities, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful spin-offs and reducing the commercialization gap.

Table 5 presents the main technological fields for Latin American patent filings in Brazil.

Table 5: Main Technological Fields for Latin American Patent Filings in Brazil (2002-2021)

Technological Field (WIPO)	Number of Orders	Top Applicants and Countries
CHEMISTRY [1.240]	442 (Mexico), 212 (Argentina), 243 (Chile), 109 (Colombia), 122 (Cuba), 24 (Uruguay), 36 (Panama), 20 (Peru), 8 (Costa Rica), 6 (Bolivia), 24 (Venezuela)	CENTRO DE ENGINEERÍA GENETICA Y BIOTECNOLOGÍA (Cuba), GRUPO PETROTEMEX, SA DE CV (Mexico), CONSEJO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES CENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS (CONICET) (Argentina), INSTITUTO MEXICANO DEL PETRÓLEO (Mexico), INTEVEP SA (Venezuela), MEXICHEM AMANCO HOLDING SA DE CV (Mexico)
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING	238 (Mexico), 271 (Argentina), 138 (Chile), 66 (Colombia), 5 (Cuba), 31 (Uruguay), 26 (Panama), 34 (Peru), 14 (Costa Rica), 13 (Paraguay), 15 (Ecuador), 10 (Dominican Republic), 5 (Bolivia), 22 (Venezuela)	MEXICHEM AMANCO HOLDING SA DE CV (Mexico), NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY (Argentina), PETROTEMEX GROUP, SA DE CV (Mexico), CARBONITE CORPORATION (Panama), PBBPOLISUR SRL (Argentina), VULCO SA (Chile)
OTHER FIELDS	126 (Mexico), 101 (Argentina), 50 (Chile), 41 (Colombia), - (Cuba), 26 (Uruguay), 34 (Panama), 14 (Peru), 13 (Costa Rica), 15 (Paraguay), 10 (Ecuador), 5 (Dominican Republic), 1 (Bolivia), 4 (Venezuela)	SCHLUMBERGER SURENCO SA (Panama), HUNTER DOUGLAS CHILE SA (Chile), MABE SA DE CV (Mexico), BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO MEXICO, SA DE CV (Mexico)
INSTRUMENTS	120 (Mexico), 77 (Argentina), 65 (Chile), 33 (Colombia), 2 (Cuba), 12 (Uruguay), 20 (Panama), 8 (Peru), 19 (Costa Rica), 2 (Paraguay), 2 (Ecuador), 4 (Venezuela)	GRUPO PI MABE SA DE CV (Mexico), ESTABLISHMENT LABS SA (Costa Rica), CMPC TISSUE SA (Chile), SCHLUMBERGER SURENCO SA (Panama), URUGUS SA (Uruguay)
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING	75 (Mexico), 46 (Argentina), 31 (Chile), 18 (Colombia), - (Cuba), 9 (Uruguay), 11 (Panama), 4 (Peru), 6 (Costa Rica), 2 (Paraguay), 2 (Ecuador)	CODENSA SAESP (Colombia), CONDUMEX SERVICES SA DE CV (Mexico), MEXICHEM AMANCO HOLDING SA DE CV (Mexico), ESTABLISHMENT LABS SA (Costa Rica), URUGUS SA (Uruguay), VITRO SAB DE CV (Mexico)

Source: INPI, Technological Radar.

5. Enabling Policy and Regulatory Environment

It is essential to ensure that the "Deeptech Incentive" is fully integrated and harmonized with the broader New Industry Brazil (NIB) strategy, which aims at sustainable development and innovation, and with the National Intellectual Property Strategy (ENPI), which seeks to reduce patent decision times and leverage technological information.

There is a need to implement or expand priority examination programs specifically for deep tech patents originating from universities. This could involve expanding the current Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) or Green Patent programs. Currently, PPH applications have a new limit of 3,200 per annual cycle, with a limit of 1,000 per section of the International Patent Classification (IPC), which could be strategically leveraged for deep tech . Domestic applicants already benefit from age-based or green technology-based priority processing modes.

NIB and ENPI already provide high-level strategic direction for industrial and IP policy in Brazil. The “Deeptech Incentive” would not be a stand-alone policy, but a crucial operational layer that translates these overarching objectives into tangible actions specifically for the commercialization of university IP. Accelerating patent examination for deep tech is particularly vital as it directly reduces time to market, a critical factor for high-risk, long-gestation deep tech ventures.

This coherence across different policy instruments strengthens the overall innovation ecosystem and signals a clear and unified government commitment. A fragmented policy landscape can often stifle innovation. By ensuring that the “Deeptech Incentive” is a cohesive and integral part of national strategies, it gains legitimacy, secures the necessary resources and significantly increases its chances of success in fostering a vibrant deep tech spin-off scene .

VI. Expected Impact and Benefits for Brazil

• Increasing University IP Commercialization Rates: By providing clear ownership, strong incentives and dedicated support structures, the mechanism will significantly boost the conversion of academic patents into market-ready products and services, addressing the problem of “passive” IP.

  
  

• Growing a Vibrant Deep Tech Ecosystem : A strategic focus on deep tech will cultivate specialized expertise, attract more private investment, and foster a dynamic environment for high-impact innovation, leading to the formation of new technology-based clusters, similar to the transformative experience in the US post-Bayh-Dole.

  
  

• Improved Economic Returns on Public Investments in R&D: Public funds allocated to university research will generate greater economic dividends through increased royalties , licensing fees, and the creation of new businesses and high-value jobs, thus generating a tangible return on public investment.

  
  

• Strengthening Brazil’s Global Competitiveness in Innovation: A thriving deep tech sector , driven by successful university spin-offs , will improve Brazil’s position in global innovation rankings and enhance its ability to address complex national and global challenges, reinforcing its leadership position in Latin America.

VII. Recommendations for Implementation

For the "Deeptech Incentive" to become a transformative reality, coordinated and strategic actions from different stakeholders are necessary .

A. Specific Actions for Government Agencies (FINEP, INPI), Universities and the Private Sector

• Government (FINEP, INPI, MDIC):

  • Legislation/Decrees: Draft and enact specific legislation or executive decrees for the “Deeptech Incentive”, clearly defining IP ownership for universities and ICTs, and establishing their commercialization mandates.

    
    

  • Dedicated Funding: Establish dedicated financing lines and specialized venture capital funds for university deep tech spin-offs , potentially leveraging and expanding existing FINEP/BNDES mechanisms.

    
    

  • Priority Patent Examination: Expand and promote priority patent examination for deep tech , potentially creating a specific “Deep Tech PPH” or “Deep Tech Green Patents” program, taking advantage of the increased PPH thresholds.

    
    

  • Data and Monitoring: Utilize INPI’s data analytics capabilities (e.g., Technological Radar, Depositor Rankings) to publish regular, detailed reports on university IP commercialization, spin-off activity, and deep tech trends , informing ongoing policy adjustments.

    
    

• Universities and ICTs:

  • Strengthen Technology Innovation Hubs - NIT: Significantly strengthen Technology Innovation Hubs - NIT with increased funding, specialized personnel (e.g., expertise in business development, legal, deep tech marketing ), and clear performance metrics linked to commercialization results.

    
    

  • Internal Policies: Develop and implement transparent internal policies for IP disclosure, fair sharing of royalties /equity with inventors, and formal academic recognition for entrepreneurial activities.

    
    

  • Entrepreneurial Culture: Integrate entrepreneurial education and mindset into academic curricula, fostering a culture of innovation and commercialization among students and researchers.

    
    

• Private Sector (Corporates, VCs, Angel Investors):

  • Active Engagement: Actively engage with Technological Innovation Centers - NIT and university researchers to identify opportunities for collaboration and invest in promising deep tech ventures .

    
    

  • Co-development: Participate in co-development and sponsored research projects with universities, leveraging public funding incentives and shared IP models.

    
    

  • Consortia: Form industry-specific consortia to pool resources for deep tech investment , mentoring, and market access for university spin-offs .

B. Multi-Stakeholder Working Group to Refine and Operationalize the “Deeptech Incentive”

It is crucial to convene the high-level multi-stakeholder working group, lead by FINEP and involving key representatives from FINEP, INPI, MDIC, leading Brazilian universities and ICTs, relevant industry associations (e.g., those active in chemistry, mechanical engineering), and the deep tech venture capital community . This group would be tasked with:

• Develop detailed implementation guidelines and a phased roadmap for the “Deeptech Incentive”.

  
  

• Define robust performance indicators and monitoring mechanisms to track progress and impact.

  
  

• Identify pilot programs and early deep tech sectors for accelerated implementation.

  
  

• Ensure continuous adaptation and improvement of the engine based on real-world feedback and evolving market needs.

  
  

Implementing a transformative policy like the Deeptech Incentive requires more than just legislative action; it demands broad support, coordinated action, and continuous adaptation from a diverse set of stakeholders . A multi-stakeholder working group ensures that the policy is practical, addresses the diverse needs of all stakeholders (academia, industry, government, individual inventors), and can effectively adapt to unforeseen challenges and opportunities.

This collaborative governance model is essential to achieve systemic and sustainable change in a complex innovation ecosystem. This inclusive approach mitigates the risk of top-down policies failing due to a lack of operational alignment or resistance from key stakeholders. It fosters a shared sense of ownership and responsibility, thus ensuring a more effective and sustainable transformation of Brazil’s deep tech landscape.

Conclusion: A New Path for Brazilian Innovation

The Deeptech Incentive represents an urgent and important potential opportunity to unlock Brazil’s deep tech capabilities and fill the critical gap in IP commercialization. This mechanism, inspired by the lessons of the Bayh-Dole Act and adapted to Brazil’s particularities, offers a strategic path to transform academic excellence and public investments in R&D into tangible economic prosperity, high-value job creation, and significant social impact.

By embracing this initiative, Brazil can solidify its position as an innovation leader in Latin America and emerge as a prominent player in the global deep tech scene . A unified commitment by the National Deep Tech Policy Working Group to advocate and operationalize the “Deeptech Incentive” will not only boost economic growth but also empower the country to address complex challenges with innovative, science-based solutions, marking the beginning of a new era for Brazilian innovation.

by Marcio de Paula

Brazilian Health Innovation Institute - IBIS