Modernisation of the patent system in Venezuela: Legal, technological and economic challenges

Patents of invention form the technical and economic core of the industrial property system. As legal instruments granting the rights-holder the exclusive right to exploit an invention for a determined period, in exchange for the public disclosure of the created knowledge, patents reflect the tension between a temporary monopoly and social access to knowledge. This tension shapes the ratio juris underpinning the international system for the protection of inventions.

Venezuela’s industrial property regime currently faces a structural regulatory contradiction. On one hand, the Republic is a signatory to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as amended in Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, approved by means of the Law published in the Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 4,829 on December 29, 1994. Venezuela’s industrial property regime currently faces a structural regulatory contradiction. On one hand, the Republic is a signatory to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as amended in Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, approved by means of the Law published in the Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 4,829 on December 29, 1994. On the other hand, the basic legal instrument governing patents is the Industrial Property Law, enacted by the Congress of the Republic on August 29, 1955¹. This law, promulgated via presidential executive order ("Ejecútese") on September 2, 1955, and originally published in Official Gazette No. 24,873 on October 14, 1955, does not contemplate essential categories of contemporary patentability, lacks agile administrative mechanisms, and fails to align with the minimum standards required by current international law on the matter. The tension between the content of the international commitments undertaken and the inadequacy of the national legal framework constitutes the main dysfunction of the Venezuelan industrial property system.

Venezuela's withdrawal from the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), formalized on April 22, 2006² deepened this regulatory backlog by deactivating the application of Decision 486 of September 14, 2000, which established the Common Industrial Property Regime and represented a regulatory model harmonized with the multilateral commitments undertaken by member countries. Currently comprising Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, the CAN maintains Decision 486 in force as a common industrial property instrument for the four states remaining in the bloc. Venezuela, on the other hand, reverted to a historically outdated legal framework, creating, among other effects, a situation of legal uncertainty for patent applications filed under the Andean regime.

The present work examines this problem from three interconnected perspectives: (i) the legal challenge of modernizing Venezuela’s legal framework in line with the standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO); (ii) the technological challenge of adapting patentability criteria to 21st-century innovations, including those enabled by artificial intelligence; and (iii) the economic challenge of positioning Venezuela as an attractive destination for investment in research and development (R&D) and technology transfer.

The methodology employed is a legal-dogmatic approach with a comparative law perspective. The primary sources used are the 1955 Venezuelan Industrial Property Law, the Paris Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and specialized national and international legal doctrine. Secondary sources comprise WIPO statistics, institutional documents, and legislative policy analyses.

1. The legal framework of the patent system in Venezuela

1.1 The 1955 Industrial Property Law: Legal Validity and Structural Limitations

The Venezuelan Industrial Property Law was passed by the Congress of the Republic on August 29, 1955, enacted (“Ejecútese”) through presidential decree on September 2, 1955, and originally published in Official Gazette No. 24,873 on October 14, 1955. Leonel Salazar Reyes-Zumeta has pointed out with historical accuracy that the proper designation of the law is 1955 rather than 1956, which is mistakenly cited in many academic papers. The 1956 publication in Official Gazette No. 25,227 on December 10, 1956, was merely a reprint because the first edition had run out, as explicitly stated in the Summary of that gazette³.

This law, in its substantive sections, governs invention patents, improvement patents, industrial models and designs, and commercial trademarks. In terms of patents, Article 14 sets out patentable subject matter through a positive list including: (1) every new, defined, and useful product; (2) every new machine, tool, or apparatus for industrial, medicinal, technical, or scientific use; (3) every new industrial application of known methods to achieve a new result or product; and (4) new processes for manufacturing materials or items for industrial or commercial purposes.

Article 15 of the law establishes patentability exclusions that do not align with the categories contemplated under the TRIPS Agreement. Notably, these include the lack of protection for: (i) integrated circuits and layout-designs; (ii) utility models as an autonomous category; (iii) diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods; and (iv) computer programs. Likewise, the 1955 law does not provide for any compulsory licensing mechanism comparable in scope to Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement does not provide for any compulsory licensing mechanism comparable in scope to Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement⁴.

Regarding the term of protection, Article 9 of the 1955 law establishes that patents are issued "for five or ten years at the will of the applicant." This term is inconsistent with Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement, which sets a minimum term of twenty (20) years from the filing date of the application. The current law does not incorporate this minimum standard, which creates legal uncertainty for both patent holders and those who access inventions in the public domain.

Ignacio de León pointed out, in the context of the analysis of Decision 344 of the Cartagena Agreement, that the absence of effective protection for industrial property rights constitutes a structural disincentive to foreign direct investment, noting that “the fundamental pillar of a nation’s development is precisely the uniformity of its legal system.”⁵ This observation, made in the 1990s, remains fully relevant in light of the current state of the Venezuelan legal system.

1.2. The Withdrawal from the Cartagena Agreement and Its Regulatory Consequences

Venezuela's withdrawal of the Cartagena Agreement, announced on April 19, 2006, and formalized on April 22 of that year by the then-President of the Republic, implied the deactivation, five years later, of Decision 486 of the Andean Community, which governed the common industrial property regime⁶.This instrument, in force since September 14, 2000, had incorporated Venezuela into a regulatory standard harmonized with European Union and WIPO law, furnishing the national system with modern institutions: unified industrial design, protection of trade secrets, appellations of origin, broad-spectrum compulsory licenses, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms.

Decision 486 is the most comprehensive industrial property instrument adopted by the Andean Community. Its 291 articles systematically regulate patents (Articles 14–80), utility models (Articles 81–92), industrial designs (Articles 113 to 131), trade secret protection (Articles 260 to 266), trademarks and distinctive signs (Articles 134 to 224), apellations of origin (Articles 201 to 220), and geographical indications. Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia, current member states of the Andean Community (CAN), continue to apply this regime as Community law with direct and preferential application over local legislation. Venezuela’s withdrawal consequently entailed a return to a national regime that is radically inferior in terms of coverage and modernity.

As a direct result of exiting the Andean Community, Carolina Lourdes Rodríguez Aguilera and Aura Esther Troconis Troconis documented the loss of tangible benefits: the elimination of the Autonomous Intellectual Property Service's (SAPI) administrative power to grant injunctions and the lack of protection for integrated circuits, among others⁷. It should also be noted that the term of exclusive use of a trademark was extended from ten (10) years—the term established by Decision 486—to fifteen (15) years, as provided for in Article 30 of the 1955 Industrial Property Law; that is, the term was numerically extended upon returning to national law, even though the Andean regime was more modern in its conditions for renewal, enforcement, and registration publicity.

From the perspective of international law, the SAPI Communication dated September 12, 2008, formally reinstated the complete application of the 1955 Industrial Property Law, provided that its provisions do not conflict with the 1999 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CRBV). This constitutional compatibility clause is significant by virtue of Article 98 of the CRBV, 

1.3. The binding international legal framework applicable to Venezuela

Venezuela maintains international patent obligations derived from the following instruments: (i) the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as amended in Stockholm (1967); (ii) the TRIPS Agreement, Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, approved by means of the Ratification Law published in Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 4,829 on December 29, 1994; and (iii) the Convention Establishing WIPO (1967). The Strasbourg Agreement (1971) Concerning the International Patent Classification and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) have not been signed by Venezuela.

The TRIPS Agreement represents the mandatory international minimum standard. Article 27.1 requires member States to grant patents for inventions, both products and processes, in all fields of technology, provided they are new, involve an inventive step, and are capable of industrial application⁸. The 1955 Venezuelan law partially meets these requirements with respect to inventions relating to industrial processes, but it has serious shortfalls in terms of the protection of pharmaceutical product inventions and regarding the criteria for absolute novelty.
    The flexibilities provided under TRIPS—particularly compulsory licenses (Article 31) and limited exceptions to patent rights (Article 30)—represent public policy tools that Venezuela could leverage in new legislation, particularly in strategic sectors such as public health and food security⁹.  Carlos M. Correa has noted that the scope for regulatory autonomy under TRIPS is broader than is often recognized, highlighting that the 2001 Doha Declaration expressly reaffirmed the right of WTO Members to use these flexibilities for the benefit of public health¹⁰.

2. Legal challenges: The need for legislative reform

2.1 Insufficiencies of the Legislation in Force compared to the WIPO standard

The gap between the 1955 Industrial Property Law and contemporary WIPO standards can be summarized in five critical areas.

First: Lack of independent protection for utility models. CAN Decision 486 (Articles 81 to 92) and current Latin American legislations—Argentina (Decree-Law No. 6,673/63), Colombia (via Decision 486), Mexico (1991 Industrial Property Law, reformed in 2020)—contemplate this figure, which protects inventions with a lower inventive step but direct industrial application. The 1955 Venezuelan legal framework merges this category with "industrial models," creating conceptual confusions with industrial designs that undermine the systematic consistency that should characterize any modern legal system.

Second: Restriction on the field of pharmaceutical patentability. Article 15 of the 1955 law excludes, among other subject matter, medicines from patentability. This exclusion is contrary to Article 27.1 of TRIPS, which does not allow discrimination by field of technology. Although TRIPS allows invoking the public health exception of Article 31 and the 2001 Doha Declaration, this requires an express and transparent regulation that the current legal framework does not provide.

Third: Inexistence of administrative precautionary measures. SAPI lacks the authority to adopt urgent protective precautionary measures, a function it did possess under Decision 486 (Articles 243 to 256). This deficiency forces right holders to resort to ordinary courts, with the inherent transaction costs and delays that this implies.

Fourth: Insufficient term of protection. As previously indicated, the 1955 law establishes terms of five or ten years (Article 9), whereas Article 33 of TRIPS sets a minimum of twenty (20) years. This discrepancy generates legal uncertainty for right holders and for those accessing the public domain.

Fifth: Lack of protection for integrated circuit layout designs. Article 35 of the TRIPS Agreement requires the protection of these rights in accordance with the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (Washington Treaty or IPIC, 1989), an obligation that the 1955 Industrial Property Law does not fulfill¹¹.

2.2 Joining the PCT as a Pathway to Modernization

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), administered by the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), is the multilateral instrument that allows an applicant to file a single international patent application with effect in the contracting states. As of April 1, 2026, the PCT has 158 contracting states, making it the most widespread system for the international protection of inventions¹². In 2023, approximately 272,600 PCT applications were filed worldwide, a number that confirms the centrality of this instrument in the global patent system.

Venezuela is not a party to the PCT. This situation places the country at a disadvantage relative to all of its major trading partners and regional competitors: Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and Mexico have acceded to the treaty. Non-accession means that Venezuelan inventors must file separate national applications in each jurisdiction where they wish to obtain protection, with the associated costs and administrative burdens.

Joining the PCT would demand, as a prior condition, the modernization of the Venezuelan patent system to bring it into line with the requirements of the PCT Regulations—in particular, the rules on absolute novelty, the time limits set forth in Chapters I and II of the treaty, and the designation of the national office as a receiving authority. This modernization cannot materialize without a thorough legislative overhaul of the internal legal system.

2.3. Legislative Paralysis: Diagnosis and Causes

Attempts to update industrial property legislation in Venezuela have been repeated and consistently unsuccessful. From the parliamentary debates of the 1990s, through the bills introduced while Decision 486 was in effect, to the consultations initiated by SAPI after 2008, no initiative has resulted in the enactment of a new law.

Ignacio de León identified that the primary dysfunctionality of the Venezuelan system did not lie exclusively in statutory obsolescence, but rather in the "absolute legal uncertainty" generated by the coexistence of rules of varying hierarchy and origin, which structurally disincentives investment¹³. This insight, made in the analysis of Decision 344 of the Cartagena Agreement, acquired greater acuity following the 2006 withdrawal and the subsequent loss of Andean regulatory support.

The absence of a reliable statistical monitoring system for SAPI’s registration activity with WIPO is a further indicator of the system’s institutional weakness. Elsi Jiménez and Rubén García documented that, according to WIPO data for the period 1997–2011, the statistical profile of Venezuela shows years with no reported patent applications by residents, indicating that SAPI did not systematically report to the international organization on national registration activity¹⁴. This institutional behavior deepens Venezuela’s isolation from the global system of intellectual property indicators. 

3. Technological challenges: New forms of creation and their protection

3.1 Artificial Intelligence and the Patentability of Its Inventions

One of the most urgent issues in contemporary patent law is that concerning the protection of inventions generated by means of artificial intelligence (AI). The WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), at its thirty-sixth session held in October 2024, deliberated on the design of a work plan to explore policy options regarding AI-driven patent systems¹⁵. Within this framework, the applicable patentability standards—in particular, the inventive step and the "person skilled in the art" standard—and the necessity or lack of legal personhood to satisfy the "inventor" requirement within the meaning of international conventions, were identified as core issues.

The DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) case illustrates the legal dimension of this debate. It involves an artificial intelligence system developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, on whose behalf patent applications were filed in various jurisdictions with the system listed as the inventor. The UK patent authorities, the European Patent Office, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected these applications, concluding that the inventor must be a natural person. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in its ruling of 20 December 2023 (Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, [2023] UKSC 49), confirmed that the law requires a human inventor, a criterion that reflects the prevailing position in comparative law¹⁶.

The 1955 Venezuelan legal framework does not contemplate any criteria regarding the authorship of AI-assisted inventions. Given this gap, a new Venezuelan law must take a position on this debate, preferably by adopting the internationally accepted approach: the inventor must be a natural person, without prejudice to the fact that legal entities may be patent holders by assignment or through an employment relationship, in accordance with Articles 320 through 329 of the Organic Law on Labor and Workers (LOTTT) of 2012.

3.2. Biodiversity, Traditional Knowledge, and Genetic Resources

Venezuela possesses a significant biological, cultural, and geographical diversity, with a potential direct impact on the protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, geographical indications, and appellations of origin. Article 124 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (CRBV) guarantees the collective intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples' knowledge, technologies, and innovations and expressly prohibits the registration of patents on these ancestral resources and knowledge. The Law on Biological Diversity (Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 5,468, May 24, 2000) and the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities (Official Gazette No. 38,344, December 27, 2005) develop this constitutional protection at the domestic sphere.

3.3. Digitalization Backlog within the Registration System

Regarding distinctive signs, SAPI implemented, through Official Notice No. DG-001-2020 of February 7, 2020, the exclusive application of the Nice International Classification (version NCL11-2020) for trademark registration, abandoning the national classification system provided for in the 1955 law¹⁷. This administrative measure, which partially harmonizes the trademark system with WIPO standards, highlights an institutional paradox: SAPI applies international classification standards de facto through regulations, while the substantive legal instrument remains anchored in 1955.

In the area of patents, the digitization of the Industrial Property Bulletin and the implementation of the SAPI Digital Bulletin represent advances in the publicity of patent registration. Nevertheless, the absence of integration with WIPO's databases—particularly PATENTSCOPE, the PCT application search engine—critically restricts the global reach of the Venezuelan framework and reduces the visibility of national inventions to foreign examiners and legal professionals.

4. Economic challenges: Patents, investment and innovation

4.1. The Relationship Between Patent Protection and Investment

The economic theory of patent law, introduced by William D. Nordhaus in his work Invention, Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969) and later expanded by William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner in The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003),argues that the temporary monopoly granted by a patent creates the necessary incentives for economic agents to incur the costs and risks of inventive activity. For Venezuela, the key question is not whether patents should be protected, but rather how to build a system where protection balances innovation incentives with public access to knowledge.

Ignacio de León pointed out that "the fundamental pillar of the development of peoples is precisely the uniformity of their legal system, meaning that economic agents know in advance whether their conduct is lawful or unlawful; because this situation of absolute legal uncertainty is what generates a disincentive to investment."¹⁸ This observation acquires special relevance in the current Venezuelan context, where foreign direct investment in knowledge-intensive sectors is practically non-existent.

Comparatively, the WIPO Global Intellectual Property Indicators Report for 2023 documents that India achieved a 15.7% growth in patent applications, marking its fifth consecutive year of growth exceeding 10%¹⁹. This data illustrates the correlation between robust patent systems and growth in inventive activity. Venezuela, in contrast, allocated 2.5% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to science and technology in 2013, according to the Ministry of Science and Innovation (MINCI), a figure comparable to that of Japan or France, but obtained virtually no patent output during the same period, revealing a profound institutional dysfunction that goes beyond budgetary insufficiency²⁰.

4.2. Appellations of Origin and Their Strategic Value

As of June 1, 2026, Venezuela has eighteen registered territorial distinctive signs before the Autonomous Intellectual Property Service (SAPI): three appellations of origin and fifteen protected geographical indications.

The three appellations of origin were issued while Venezuela was a member of the Andean Community of Nations and are kept valid through successive renewals: Cacao de Chuao (Resolution No. 2006, Bulletin No. 443, November 22, 2000, renewed in 2016); Cocuy de Pecaya, official designation according to the act of concession (Resolution No. 0287, Bulletin No. 445, June 1, 2001, renewed in 2016); and Ron de Venezuela (Resolution No. 798, Bulletin No. 459, November 4, 2003, renewed in 2019). A fourth application, Café Grano de Oro de Biscucuy, was left incomplete due to the withdrawal from the Cartagena Agreement in 2006²¹.

Starting in 2021, SAPI resumed and expanded the granting of territorial distinctive signs under the Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) framework.By June 1, 2026, fifteen have been recognized: Cocuy Larense (Bulletin No. 609-610, 2021, Lara State); Cacao Carenero (Bulletin No. 609, 2021, Barlovento, Miranda); Cacao Caripito (Bulletin No. 612, 2021, Monagas); Café de Boconó (Bulletin No. 619, 2022, Trujillo); Cacao de Choroní (Bulletin No. 619, 2022, Aragua); Cacao de Patanemo (Bulletin No. 625, 2023, Carabobo); Café de Mérida (Bulletin No. 625, 2023, Mérida); Ají Margariteño (Bulletin No. 629, 2024, Nueva Esparta); Miel de Kavitepuy Gran Sabana (Bulletin No. 630, 2024, Bolívar State); Aguacate de Yaracuy (Bulletin No. 636, 2024, Yaracuy); Café de Miranda (Bulletin No. 640, 2025, Miranda); Pan de Táchira (Bulletin No. 640, 2025, Táchira); Queso de Cabra de Lara (Bulletin No. 645, 2025, Lara); Café de Lara (Bulletin No. 648, 2025, Lara); and Cacao de Barinas (Bulletin No. 652, April 2026, Barinas State).

This development in the registration process, while positive in terms of institutional activity, simultaneously reveals the main deficiency of the Venezuelan legal system: the 1955 Industrial Property Law does not regulate designations of origin or geographical indications as autonomous categories. SAPI manages these filings by applying trademark procedures analogously—as explicitly stated on its official website—a workaround that lacks the regulatory foundation required to ensure legal certainty for owners and the full enforceability of their rights.

From a legal standpoint, an appellation of origin protects a product whose quality is due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, pursuant to Article 2 of the Lisbon Agreement (1958); a protected geographical indication requires only that such quality be fundamentally attributable to its origin, pursuant to Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement. Neither of these categories, nor collective marks or certification marks, are regulated in a differentiated manner under current law, which reinforces the need for the comprehensive legislative reform proposed in this article. The diversity of the eighteen active registrations demonstrates Venezuela's potential in this field and the urgency of providing it with a modern and effective regulatory framework.

4.3. Industrial property within the framework of the LOTTT and the LOCTI

The Venezuelan industrial property regime cannot be analyzed in isolation from other regulations that affect the ownership and exploitation of knowledge. The Organic Law of Labor, Workers, and Working Women (LOTTT) of 2012 establishes, in Articles 320 to 329, a property regime for workers' inventions that departs from the prevailing model: inventions financed entirely with public funds are declared to be in the public domain, which discourages universities and state research centers from filing patent applications²². This regime collides with Article 3 of the Industrial Property Law of 1955, which preserves the registrant's property rights over their invention.

The Organic Law of Science, Technology, and Innovation (LOCTI, 2010) confirms, in Articles 19, 20, and 21, the SAPI's authority in matters of intellectual property. Article 27 subordinates the State's priority to innovation projects "with national participation in intellectual property rights"²³. This provision, correctly interpreted, should incentivize patent protection; however, the lack of operational mechanisms and concrete tax incentives renders it a programmatic norm with limited practical effect.

5. Proposals for the modernisation of the Venezuelan patent system

5.1. Comprehensive Legislative Reform: Minimum Guidelines

A new Venezuelan Industrial Property Law must incorporate, at a minimum, the following elements to comply with WIPO standards and overcome the deficiencies of the 1955 legal framework:

• (i) Expressly establish a twenty (20) year term of patent protection from the filing date of the application, in accordance with Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.
• (ii) Adopt the absolute novelty criterion, in line with the requirements of the PCT and modern national legal systems.
• (iii) Incorporate utility models as an autonomous category, with patentability criteria differentiated from the inventive step required for patents of invention.
• (iv) Regulate compulsory licensing under clear criteria aligned with Articles 30 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, including licenses for reasons of public health emergencies and those arising from anti-competitive practices.
• (v) Expressly establish prior user rights in favor of those who have used an invention in good faith prior to the patent application filing date—a concept already implicitly contemplated in the 1955 Industrial Property Law, but which requires express and updated regulation.
• (vi) Incorporate provisions on disclosing the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications, in line with Article 124 of the CRBV and ongoing negotiations within the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee.
• (vii) Grant SAPI administrative injunctive powers subject to subsequent judicial review, analogous to those provided for in Articles 243 through 256 of Decision 486.
• (viii) Harmonize the ownership regime of employee inventions, provided for in Articles 320 through 329 of the LOTTT, with the principle of incentives for research and development, recognizing proportional economic rights for the employee-inventor, regardless of the public or private nature of the funding.

5.2. Accession to the PCT: A Roadmap

Accession to the PCT must be conceived as a phased process divided into three distinct steps. In the first phase (Preparation, one to two years), Venezuela must update its patent legislation to incorporate the requirements of the PCT Regulations, train SAPI examining staff in international search and examination standards, and activate access to the PATENTSCOPE system for legal professionals and national inventors. In the second phase (Accession, two to three years), Venezuela will formalize its PCT treaty commitment upon ratification by the National Assembly, appointing SAPI as a Receiving Office. In the third phase (Consolidation, three to five years), SAPI will assess seeking status as an International Searching Authority through partnerships with regional peers like Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) or Colombia’s Superintendence of Industry and Commerce.

5.3. Institutional Strengthening of SAPI

Strengthening SAPI as the competent authority in matters of industrial property requires its transformation into an autonomous institute with its own legal personality, independent assets, and self-financing capacity. This proposal was put forward by Ignacio de León when analyzing the project to create the Venezuelan Institute of Industrial Property, noting that such a transformation would grant the governing body "possibilities of independence regarding budget allocation... and would have its own legal personality."²⁴

This transformation would enable the regulatory authority to: (i) retain collected fees to finance its technological modernization; (ii) litigate in defense of its administrative decisions without the involvement of the Attorney General’s Office; and (iii) set up cooperation mechanisms with WIPO and peer offices in the region for the ongoing training of examiners.

Conclusions

First, the Venezuelan industrial property regime suffers from a structural regulatory obsolescence that cannot be corrected thru regulatory or administrative adjustments. The Industrial Property Law of 1955, despite the partial validity of some of its institutions, including the principle of prior in tempore, prior in ius and the generic protection of non-traditional distinctive signs, analyzed by Leonel Salazar Reyes-Zumeta²⁵, proves to be incompatible with the requirements of the TRIPS   Agreement and with the standards of WIPO in essential matters for the knowledge economy.

Second, the withdrawal from the Cartagena Agreement in 2006 represented not only a regulatory setback, but also a rupture with the regional process of legal integration that had allowed Venezuela to align itself with the most advanced legal frameworks in Latin America. Reclaiming this ground requires autonomous legislative reform, drawing upon the standards of Latin American comparative law and international intellectual property law, without this necessarily implying rejoining any regional integration bloc.

Third, the technological challenges of patentability of AI-assisted inventions, protection of biodiversity and traditional knowledge, and digital registration are pressing and cannot wait for the completion of the basic legislative reform. SAPI can move forward with adopting provisional administrative guidelines that provide immediate answers to these issues while the National Assembly processes the final law.

Fourth, strengthening the patent system must be viewed as an integrated public policy combining regulatory reform, SAPI’s institutional capacity building, accession to the PCT, harmonization with the research and development rules set forth in the LOCTI and the LOTTT, and the establishment of fiscal and financial incentives for inventors and enterprises protecting their creations through patents.  this systemic integration, isolated legislative reform will fall short.

Fifth, Venezuela, as a country with significant biological and cultural diversity, a unique agro-industrial heritage accredited by its appellations of origin for cocoa, coffee, cocuy pecayero, and rum, and a university and scientific tradition that can be further enhanced, possesses the objective conditions to modernize its industrial property system. Updating the legislation does not conflict with national interests concerning access to knowledge; rather, it is the essential legal framework required for the Republic to sovereignly and strategically leverage the flexibilities granted to developing countries under the TRIPS Agreement, as well as WIPO's technical cooperation resources.

---

¹Leonel Salazar Reyes-Zumeta, "Ley de Propiedad Industrial 1955: Denominación, distintivita sobrevenida y signos distintivos no-tradicionales," Revista Venezolana de Derecho Mercantil, No. 6 (2021): 177-183. The author states that the correct name of the law must refer to the year of its enactment (1955), pursuant to Article 89 of the 1953 Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela, in force at the time of its approval. 

²Carolina Lourdes Rodríguez Aguilera and Aura Esther Troconis Troconis, "La Propiedad Industrial en Venezuela: Desarrollo Institucional y Experiencia Normativa (1955-2017)," INNOVA Research Journal 3, no. 7 (2018): 104-105. The withdrawal was announced on April 19, 2006, and became effective on April 22, 2011, following the five years of preservation of free trade benefits provided for in the Cartagena Agreement.

³Salazar Reyes-Zumeta, "Industrial Property Law 1955," 178–183. Cfr. also Gaceta Oficial de la República de Venezuela No. 25.227, December 10, 1956 (Sumario).

⁴World Trade Organization (WTO), Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement, April 15, 1994, Articles 30 and 31.

⁵Ignacio de León, "Marco Regulatorio de la Propiedad Industrial" (paper presented at the Institute of Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, Universidad de Carabobo, circa 1994), 7.

⁶Rodríguez Aguilera and Aura Esther Troconis Troconis, "La Propiedad Industrial en Venezuela", 104-105.

⁷Ibid., 100. The source additionally points out that the trademark term under Decision 486 was ten (10) years, whereas the 1955 Industrial Property Law establishes fifteen (15) years in its Article 30. Upon returning to the national legal system, the term for trademarks increased from 10 to 15 years, although the Andean regime was more modern in its conditions for renewal, publicity, and enforcement.

⁸Organización Mundial del Comercio. (1994). Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC), art. 27.1. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C.

⁹Ramírez Díaz, K. (2010). Las flexibilidades del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC: las excepciones a los derechos de patentes. Anuario de Derecho, 27, 203–231. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/364/36452891008/html/

¹⁰Carlos M. Correa, Implications of the Doha Declaration on the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Public Health, Health Economics and Drugs Series No. 012 (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002), available at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/68356/WHO_EDM_PAR_2002.3_spa.pdf.

¹¹Rodríguez Aguilera and Aura Esther Troconis Troconis, "Industrial Property in Venezuela," 100. Cf. WTO, TRIPS, Article 35; Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (Washington Treaty, 1989).

¹²World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), PCT Contracting States and Two-letter Codes, updated as of April 1, 2026. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html. Cf. WIPO, "Innovation Without Borders: WIPO's International Patent System Surpasses 5 Million Published Applications," Press Release, 2024, available at: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/es/articles/2024/article_0018.html.

¹³De León, I. (2009). Marco regulatorio de la propiedad industrial. Editorial Jurídica Venezolana.

¹⁴Elsi Jiménez and Rubén García, "Venezuela: High GDP in Science and Technology and Low Patent Production," Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura, vol. XXIII, No. 1 (January-July 2017): 151-172. Universidad Central de Venezuela. DOI: 10.54642/rvac.v23i1.13626. Based on data from WIPO and RICYT, the article documents that the Venezuelan statistical profile records years without any patent applications reported by residents during the 1997-2011 period.

¹⁵WIPO, Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, Thirty-Sixth Session, Summary by the Chair, SCP/36/12, October 18, 2024, available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_36/scp_36_12.pdf. Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 (United Kingdom Supreme Court, December 20, 2023). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0201.html. Cf. Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 49 et seq.

¹⁶Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 (United Kingdom Supreme Court, December 20, 2023). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0201.html. Cf. Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 49 et seq.

¹⁷SAPI, Official Notice No. DG-001-2020, February 7, 2020.

¹⁸De León, "Marco Regulatorio de la Propiedad Industrial," 7.

¹⁹WIPO, "World Intellectual Property Indicators Report: World Patent Applications Heading for Record High in 2023," Press Release, 2024, available at: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/es/articles/2024/article_0015.html.

²⁰Ministry of Popular Power for Science, Technology and Innovation (MINCI), cited in Jiménez and García, "Venezuela: alto PIB en ciencia y tecnología," 153. The article notes that Venezuela allocated 2.5% of GDP to science and technology in 2013, a figure similar to that of Japan or France, according to official MINCI data.

²¹Autonomous Intellectual Property Service (SAPI), Resolution No. 2006, Industrial Property Bulletin No. 443, November 22, 2000 [Appellation of Origin Cacao de Chuao], renewed in Bulletin No. 568, November 14, 2016; Resolution No. 0287, Bulletin No. 445, June 1, 2001 [Appellation of Origin Cocuy de Pecaya], renewed by Resolution No. 238, Bulletin No. 568, November 14, 2016; Resolution No. 798, Bulletin No. 459, November 4, 2003 [Appellation of Origin Ron de Venezuela], renewed by Resolution No. 161, Bulletin No. 596, August 28, 2019. The fifteen Protected Geographical Indications granted between 2021 and 2026 are recorded in: SAPI, Registry of Protected Geographical Indications, available at: https://sapi.gob.ve/indicaciones-geograficas/ (accessed on June 1, 2026).

²²Ministry of Popular Power for Labor, Organic Law on Labor, Workers and Workwomen (LOTTT), Official Gazette No. 6,076, April 30, 2012, Articles 320-329.

²³Ministry of Popular Power for Science, Technology and Innovation, Organic Law on Science, Technology and Innovation (LOCTI), Official Gazette No. 39,575, December 8, 2010, Article 27.

²⁴De León, “Marco Regulatorio de la Propiedad Industrial”, 8

²⁵Salazar Reyes-Zumeta, “1955 Industrial Property Law,” 184-196.

---

Bibliographic references

A. Normative Sources

Asamblea Nacional de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela. Ley Orgánica de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (LOCTI) [Organic Law on Science, Technology and Innovation]. Gaceta Oficial N.° 39.575, December 8, 2010. Partially amended by Decree with Rank, Value, and Force of Law published in Gaceta Oficial Extraordinaria N.° 6.693, April 1, 2022.

Comunidad Andina de Naciones. Decisión 486: Régimen Común sobre Propiedad Industrial [Decision 486: Common Regime on Industrial Property]. Lima, September 14, 2000. Gaceta Oficial del Acuerdo de Cartagena N.° 600.

Congreso de la República de Venezuela. Ley de Propiedad Industrial [Industrial Property Law]. Gaceta Oficial N.° 24.873, October 14, 1955. Reprint: Gaceta Oficial N.° 25.227, December 10, 1956.

Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela [Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela]. Gaceta Oficial N.° 5.453 Extraordinaria, March 24, 2000. Amendment N.° 1, Gaceta Oficial N.° 5.908 Extraordinaria, February 19, 2009.

Ministerio del Poder Popular para el Trabajo. Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (LOTTT) [Organic Labor Law for Workers]. Gaceta Oficial N.° 6.076, April 30, 2012.

Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC). Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC) [Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)]. Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement. Geneva, April 15, 1994.

Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Convenio de la OMPI [WIPO Convention]. Stockholm, July 14, 1967. Amended on September 28, 1979.

Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Convenio de París para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial [Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property]. March 20, 1883, amended on September 28, 1979.

Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Tratado de Cooperación en materia de Patentes (PCT) [Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)]. Washington, June 19, 1970. Amended on September 28, 1979; modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001.

Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Tratado sobre la Propiedad Intelectual respecto de los Circuitos Integrados (Tratado de Washington) [Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (Washington Treaty)]. Washington, May 26, 1989.

Servicio Autónomo de Propiedad Intelectual (SAPI). Aviso Oficial N.° DG-001-2020 [Official Notice No. DG-001-2020]. February 7, 2020.

Servicio Autónomo de Propiedad Intelectual (SAPI). Comunicación oficial del 12 de septiembre de 2008 sobre aplicación de la Ley de Propiedad Industrial de 1955 [Official communication of September 12, 2008, regarding the application of the 1955 Industrial Property Law].

Servicio Autónomo de Propiedad Intelectual (SAPI). Resolución N.° 2006, 14 de noviembre de 2000 [Denominación de Origen Cacao de Chuao] [Resolution No. 2006, November 14, 2000 (Appellation of Origin Chuao Cocoa)].

Servicio Autónomo de Propiedad Intelectual (SAPI). Resolución N.° 0287, 22 de mayo de 2001 [Denominación de Origen Cocuy Pecayero] [Resolution No. 0287, May 22, 2001 (Appellation of Origin Cocuy Pecayero)].

Servicio Autónomo de Propiedad Intelectual (SAPI). Resolución N.° 798, 15 de agosto de 2003 [Denominación de Origen Ron de Venezuela] [Resolution No. 798, August 15, 2003 (Appellation of Origin Rum of Venezuela)].

Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49. United Kingdom Supreme Court, December 20, 2023. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0201.html

B. Domestic Legal Normative (Venezuela)

de León, I. (c. 1994). Marco Regulatorio de la Propiedad Industrial [Regulatory Framework of Industrial Property] [Conference presentation]. Instituto de Derecho Comparado, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Carabobo, Venezuela.

Rodríguez Aguilera, C. L., & Troconis Troconis, A. E. (2018). La propiedad industrial en Venezuela: Desarrollo institucional y experiencia normativa (1955-2017) [Industrial property in Venezuela: Institutional development and normative experience (1955-2017)]. INNOVA Research Journal, 3(7), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.33890/innova.v3.n7.2018.681

Salazar Reyes-Zumeta, L. (2019). La propiedad intelectual: Un derecho humano de primera y única generación [Intellectual property: A first and single generation human right]. Revista Venezolana de Derecho Mercantil, (3), 72–96.

Salazar Reyes-Zumeta, L. (2021). Ley de Propiedad Industrial 1955: Denominación, distintividad sobrevenida y signos distintivos no-tradicionales [1955 Industrial Property Law: Denomination, acquired distinctiveness, and non-traditional distinctive signs]. Revista Venezolana de Derecho Mercantil, (6), 173–199.

C. International Legal Normative

Abbott, R. (2020). The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Cambridge University Press.

Jiménez, E., & García, R. (2017). Venezuela: alto PIB en ciencia y tecnología y baja producción de patentes [Venezuela: High GDP in science and technology and low patent production]. Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura, 23(1), 151–172. Universidad Central de Venezuela. https://doi.org/10.33890/innova.v3.n7.2018.681

Ramírez Díaz, K. (2010). Las flexibilidades del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC: las excepciones a los derechos de patentes [The flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement: Exceptions to patent rights]. Anuario de Derecho (Universidad de Los Andes, Venezuela), 27, 203–231.

Correa, C. M. (2002). Repercusiones de la Declaración de Doha relativa al Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC) y la Salud Pública [Implications of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health] (Health Economics and Drugs Series No. 012). World Health Organization. Available at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/68356/WHO_EDM_PAR_2002.3_spa.pdf

Herrera Sierra, L. F. (2016). Las patentes y el derecho de la competencia: estudio de la negativa a licenciar como conducta anticompetitiva [Patents and antitrust law: A study of the refusal to license as an anticompetitive behavior]. In E. Rengifo García (Ed.), Derecho de patentes [Patent Law]. Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2003). The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Harvard University Press.

Nordhaus, W. D. (1969). Invention, Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change. MIT Press.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2024). WIPO IP Facts and Figures 2024: Patents and utility models. Geneva, November 2024. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/ip-facts-and-figures-2024/en/patents-and-utility-models.html

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2024). World Intellectual Property Indicators Report: Global patent applications hit record high in 2023 [Press release]. Geneva. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2024/article_0015.html

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2024). Innovation without borders: WIPO's international patent system surpasses 5 million published applications [Press release]. Geneva. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2024/article_0018.html

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2024). Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, Thirty-Sixth Session. Summary by the Chair (SCP/36/12). Geneva, October 18, 2024. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_36/scp_36_12.pdf

Red Iberoamericana de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología (RICyT). Indicadores de patentes [Patent indicators]. Available at: https://www.ricyt.org.[Verify year of consultation and specific data on Venezuela].