Insights

IP Australia’s latest Australian IP Report 2026 records a sharp rise in filing activity during 2025: trade mark applications reached 97,345, up 13.3%, while design applications increased to 10,296, up 7.1%. Both categories set new records. Standard patent applications, by contrast, eased by 0.5% to 30,348, suggesting that technology filings have moved into a more selective phase rather than following the same expansion seen in brands and product appearance.

The report’s research on firm performance gives the figures a practical edge. Businesses tend to show sustained gains in productivity, sales efficiency and revenue after receiving their first patent or trade mark. For companies entering or scaling in Australia, the filing surge is a signal to review trade mark clearance, product design protection and launch timing earlier in the process. The small fall in standard patents should not be read as weak innovation; it points more to a need for better prioritisation of patentable assets with clear commercial use.

Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) has opened Phase II of its priority trademark examination programme, significantly widening the situations in which applicants may request faster handling. The new categories include Brazilian basic applications linked to Madrid System international registrations where INPI acts as the office of origin, applicants that need trademark registration to operate on online marketplaces, traditional communities and family farming applicants, applicants domiciled in countries with reciprocal arrangements with Brazil, and cases where registration is a prerequisite for obtaining a government licence, authorisation or concession.

The policy is more than a procedural shortcut. It signals that INPI is trying to steer limited examination capacity toward cases where timing directly affects market access, platform operations or regulated business activity. For 2026, the programme has a total quota of 3,000 requests, split into two windows of 1,500 each, with a cap of 10 requests per applicant. Companies using Brazil as part of a Madrid filing strategy, or preparing launches that depend on marketplace onboarding or public authorisations, should identify priority candidates early and prepare supporting documents before the commercial deadline becomes tight.

Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) has placed examination efficiency at the centre of its 2026 action plan, with artificial intelligence tools expected to support searches, classification and substantive review for trademarks and industrial designs. For applicants, this should not be read as a simple IT update. If the new tools are matched with reliable data, examiner oversight and clear operating criteria, Brazil’s long examination timelines could begin to move in a more predictable direction.

The plan also points to stronger regional protection for geographical indications, including cooperation across Latin America and the Caribbean and within the Mercosur framework. The practical message is fairly direct: INPI is trying to combine speed with wider regional coordination. Companies preparing trademark, design or origin-based protection in Brazil should pay closer attention to the quality and consistency of filing materials, because automation tends to reward well-structured records and expose weak or ambiguous claims more quickly.

Mexico’s reform of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property brings a procedural issue into sharper focus: IMPI will have statutory maximum time limits for several key proceedings, including patent substantive examination, trademark registration, oppositions and renewals. Where those limits are exceeded, the authority must explain the reasons. For applicants, the main gain is not only speed. It is a clearer administrative timetable in a jurisdiction where waiting periods have often been difficult to plan around.

The reform will not, by itself, remove backlogs or guarantee identical timing across all cases. It does, however, give companies a better basis for managing filing calendars, prosecution responses, renewal budgets and opposition monitoring in Mexico. A practical note follows from this: applicants should keep closer records of procedural milestones and be ready to ask why a case has stalled. The real test will be whether the new limits are matched by transparent status information and enough examination capacity inside IMPI.

Canada’s patent term adjustment (PTA) regime is now a practical post-grant issue for patent owners. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has opened the route for requesting additional patent term where statutory conditions are met, including for patents granted after 1 December 2025. Because the request period is generally tied to a three-month deadline from grant, the first wave of deadline management will become visible in March 2026.

The change deserves attention, but not every Canadian patent will justify a PTA request. Owners should first check whether the relevant delay is attributable to the Office, whether applicant-side delay reduces the possible adjustment, and whether the likely extra term has real commercial value. For portfolios in pharmaceuticals, communications, materials and other long-tail technologies, early screening of Canadian grants after December 2025 is sensible. For lower-value cases, PTA may be a cost decision rather than an automatic filing step.

US enforcement around “Made in America” and “Made in USA” claims is becoming harder to treat as a routine advertising issue. Following the White House’s March executive order, the FTC has sharpened its attention on misleading origin claims, while the USPTO context also points to closer scrutiny where such language appears in marks, product descriptions and brand messaging. The practical risk is simple: a patriotic phrase can become a compliance problem if the manufacturing facts do not support it.

Companies using US-origin claims should review them before they reach trademark filings, packaging, websites or marketplace listings. Absolute statements are particularly exposed where materials, components or substantial processing come from outside the United States. A safer approach is to keep evidence for sourcing and assembly, avoid broad claims that overstate US contribution, and use more precise wording when only part of the production process takes place in the United States.