Between invention and impact: what INPI and GII data reveal about the urgency of health innovation in Brazil

Alma Mater Cosméticos
Oct 8
6 min read

In recent years, Brazil has faced a persistent paradox: it produces ever-increasing amounts of science, but continues to transform little of this knowledge into tangible innovation . The 2024 Statistical Yearbook of Industrial Property , published by Brazil's National Institute of Industrial Property - INPI , and the 2025 Global Innovation Index (GII) , launched by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) , reinforce this dissonance.

The data reveal a country that has evolved in scientific infrastructure and human capital, but still struggles to convert research into products, technologies, and therapies with social impact. The contrast is even more evident in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology sectors, precisely those most dependent on solid regulatory frameworks and patient capital.

1. Science advances, but health innovation in Brazil is still stalled

According to the INPI , Brazil registered 27,701 patent applications in 2024 , a slight decrease compared to 2023. However, the number of filings by national residents grew 10.3% , signaling vitality in the domestic innovation system. The problem lies at the other end: only 18% of applications are of Brazilian origin , and the majority of grants still go to foreign applicants .

IBIS Insights had already analyzed this distortion in "Only 10% of patents in Brazil are of Brazilian origin: what this means for our sovereignty." The new yearbook confirms that this proportion remains virtually stable, despite advances in infrastructure and technological capabilities.

The 32.8% drop in patent grants in 2024 is also noteworthy. It's a sign that the technical review bottleneck, although reduced in recent years, remains significant, especially in highly complex sectors such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, where the average processing time exceeds six years.

The increase in resident filings shows that Brazil has a strong scientific base and innovative capacity, but the transition to international registration remains limited. In 2023, the country filed fewer than 500 applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) , according to WIPO, while South Korea exceeded 20,000 . This figure demonstrates the domestic and largely uninternationalized nature of Brazilian innovation : patents without global exposure lose commercial relevance and strategic value.

2. In the global ranking, Brazil remains intermediate, and predictable

The Global Innovation Index 2025 ranks Brazil 52nd out of 139 countries , slightly lower than the previous year's result. Despite this, the country remains a regional leader in Latin America, ahead of Chile, Mexico, and Colombia.

The problem is not the position, but the type of progress: Brazil is consistent in innovation inputs (human capital, research infrastructure, universities), but remains weak in outputs, patents, high-tech exports, and new registered medicines.

This asymmetry confirms what IBIS Insights discussed in “ The flow of patents in Latin America and the impact on innovation in health ” : the region is advancing in research capacity, but remains vulnerable in the creation of its own innovative production chains.

Brazil's stability in the GII's mid-range is not trivial. It demonstrates resilience , but also complacency . Ten years ago, the country occupied a similar position and already faced the same obstacles: low conversion efficiency, a lack of fiscal incentives for innovation, and a shortage of venture capital focused on life sciences.

Countries like Vietnam and India, which were previously behind in the ranking, are now reaping the benefits of coordinated industrial policies and an active venture capital environment. Brazil, on the other hand, remains fragmented among ministries and agencies, lacking an integrated national strategy for healthcare innovation.

3. Biotechnology and health: the weakest link in the chain

INPI data reveals that less than 4% of national patent filings belong to the pharmaceutical sector , a percentage virtually unchanged for a decade. This is worrying, considering the growing volume of scientific publications in biotechnology and neuroscience in the country, led by institutions such as UFRJ, USP, and Fiocruz.

There is, therefore, a mismatch between knowledge generation and its technological appropriation . Brazil continues to produce quality science, but does so without transforming discoveries into marketable assets, such as patentable molecules, therapeutic RNA platforms, cell therapies, or precision diagnostic models.

This disconnect was evident in cases like that of polylaminin , a promising discovery by UFRJ in partnership with Cristália, recently analyzed by IBIS. The molecule, which can aid in the recovery of movement after spinal cord injuries, symbolizes Brazil's scientific prowess but also the structural difficulties of transforming an academic discovery into an approved, manufactured, and distributed therapy.

The Brazilian pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector is the most accurate reflection of this imbalance. In 2024, only 3.6% of patents granted in the country came from national residents, and within these, the biotechnology subsector represented an even smaller fraction. The most advanced initiatives remain concentrated in a few groups with industrial capacity, such as Cristália, Bionovis, and Blau, while universities and startups face regulatory and financial barriers that hinder the transition from prototype to product.

4. The time of innovation is not the time of science

The Global Innovation Index reinforces that countries that have managed to structure integrated innovation ecosystems, such as Switzerland (Basel) , South Korea (Seoul) and Singapore, are not necessarily those that publish the most science, but those that best convert research into products .

Basel is home to the world's densest pharmaceutical cluster, with a public-private innovation system that connects universities, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators in a continuous logic of development. South Korea, which invests more than 4.8% of its GDP in R&D , has transformed academic knowledge into applied biotechnology, supported by large conglomerates and sovereign wealth funds. Singapore has built an agile governance model, combining robust public funding, flexible regulation, and the attraction of international R&D centers.

Meanwhile, Brazil has yet to find a balance between research speed and regulatory timelines. National researchers must contend with fragmented deadlines among CNPq, FINEP, CAPES, ANVISA, and INPI, each with its own agendas, metrics, and language. The result is a system that innovates but doesn't accelerate.

5. Where we are and where we could go

There are positive signs. Recent programs such as GECEIS (Executive Group of the Health Economic-Industrial Complex) , the BNDES CEIS Line , the Deep Tech FINEP Protocol , and the regulation of Law No. 14.874/2024 (on clinical research involving human beings) indicate that the country is finally building stronger institutional foundations.

But there's still a lack of density. The Deep Tech Radar Brasil 2025 , developed by Emerge , identified 952 deep tech startups in the country , 345 of which focused on health and wellness , the largest sector among all those mapped. Within this universe, biotechnology and artificial intelligence emerge as dominant trends, with growing applications in gene therapies, vaccines, and precision diagnostics. About 55% of these companies are academic spin-offs , a direct reflection of the strength of Brazilian universities as cradles of innovation, but also a symptom of the fragility in the transition from laboratory to market.

According to the report, 30% of deep tech companies received investments of less than R$200,000 , and 51% of total funding still comes from public sources , such as FAPESP, FINEP, and SEBRAE. This reveals an ecosystem heavily dependent on the state and with a low presence of structured private capital . The challenge is to expand the scale of investment, as Brazil raised only US$216 million in deep tech in 2024 , compared to US$4 billion in the United Kingdom in the same period.

This contrast shows that the country already has a strong scientific base, but it still lacks the financial and market traction mechanisms capable of transforming this knowledge into products with high global impact. The missing link, once again, lies in the ability to sustain itself : supporting researchers until their invention crosses the "valley of death" and becomes a validated, licensed, and scalable technological asset.

6. Turning Data into Policy: The Lesson from Reports

By comparing the INPI Yearbook and the GII, we reached the uncomfortable conclusion that Brazil is a country that measures innovation, but does not yet practice it systematically.

IBIS Insights has been arguing this point for some time, in articles such as " Global Pharmaceutical Innovation by 2029: Trends, Challenges, and Brazil's Place . " What's missing is transforming statistical assessments into coordinated public policy, financing, and smart regulatory action.

This includes:

Reduce the average time for patent examinations at INPI, with automation and specific technical training in biotechnology;
Create permanent public-private venture co-investment instruments aimed at deeptechs in healthcare;
Encourage the creation of shared good manufacturing practice (GMP) laboratories;
Consolidate regional alliances in biotechnology , with regulatory cooperation and technological exchange between Latin America, Europe and Asia.

The INPI and GII reports are not just diagnostics: they are strategic alerts. They point out that, relatively speaking, Brazil invests more in science than its Latin American neighbors, but converts less into industrial innovation. It's a model that generates academic recognition, but not technological sovereignty.

The INPI and GII reports are not just statistical snapshots: they are reflections of what we have not yet been able to transform. They show a country that is scientifically mature but economically timid; creative in theory, hesitant in practice.

The challenge now is one of culture and structure: creating an environment where researchers, investors, and public policymakers speak the same language. Innovation in healthcare cannot continue to depend on isolated heroes, but on institutions that understand that the future is not improvised, but built.

At IBIS, we continue to foster this dialogue, connecting the science that discovers, the industry that produces, and the policy that enables it. Do you have a transformative healthcare project and need to connect it to the market? Contact us!