COMISSÃO DE AGRICULTURA, PECUÁRIA, ABASTECIMENTO E DESENVOLVIMENTO RURAL

So... Thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation. that is the Prossogia Mato Grosso, for whom I speak here, I would like to bring to this debate. Many of them will be treated by people, by deputies, by those who will present. I prefer to focus on a point that, for me, is the most important of all, which is the payback of royalties for patented. Here we are not talking about the efficiency of technology, and this has many problems. But for me, in my perspective, what is more symptomatical is the reluctance of a company, Monsanto Bayer, to maintain the pay for a patent. The law of industrial property is very clear. It guarantees 20 years of exclusivity for this company. It has 20 years of exclusivity. Nobody can produce or commercialize it without paying the pay for the pay. After 20 years, this technology becomes a public domain. Any citizen in any place in Brazil can produce this technology. because for me is the most important thing. Just because it's part of a legal basis, our law says this, and there is no technical discussion. "The technology works or not works." It's not that I'm talking about this. I'm talking about the illegal use of the system of intellectual property in Brazil to exercise a clearly abusive and illegal. So here, the model, everyone know, it's the model of royalties anual. So every year, the company calls it an auto-replicable. or every year the producer, when he uses this technology, has to pay the royalties. If it's a rain or a rain. Hey. And, back to the technology intact, at the time of the technology Roundup Red, all of these people remember, all of the producers present, in some moment, the producers did a job to understand for which patents was being offered by technology. And it discovered in the mid-2011 and 2012 that the company was being offered by patents, after a study that was made by producers. We are in this struggle for 15 years. After that, we introduced the "tact" technology, which was a new generation of technology. So here, the producer passed away by this new technology. During this demand, the Supreme Court was held by the FBI 5529. What was this? It was a direct action of inconstitucionalism and that was inconstitucional, the system of the law of industrial property. What was this system? It was allowed to allow a extension of patent, beyond the 20 years, when there was some delay in the INPI, which is the responsible for the patent. In 2021, This system, which is the paragraph of the article 40, the law of property industry was considered inconstitucional. Deputado Heitor, inconstitucional for decision transit in the case. Or, all the patents should have the maximum of 20 years. A partir of this, the professor of Mato Grosso had a demand post, which was put on the slide earlier, she was to judge and said: A Monsanto has three patents. Two of them, with the retification of the prazo by STF, are vencidos. Monsanto has to stop paying for royalties. What was the reaction of the company? The continuity of the cobrances. It's a argument that we guarantee in juízo the value that we're paying. But it's not that the question. The question is: can't be able to pay. The STF said that the patent is not being taken. What is the foundation for being able to pay a patent? In any place in the world this is allowed. The abusiveness, the illegality here is flagrante. This is the point we have to be able to do. What was that? Well, here are the titles that are winning. Technology intact. These are three patents. A 460, 295 e 654. Two titles with a retification of the prazo, were to win in 12 de dezembro de 2020, and the other in 3 de marzo de 2008. These patents are... Monsanto, at some point, also after 2021, the administration tried to say that the patents that we discussed justly were not marked by a modality of the STF. also lost by decision transit in the state. The STF says that these agro patents are in the requisition and were judged in constitucion. Or, they must be rectified for 2018 and 2020. What happens in the practical way? Despite these many decisions, except for the sentence of Mato Grosso in this action, except for the judgment of the product, This for Monsanto... I will continue to pay with a very fragile argument that I am going to guarantee in juízo. And continue to pay in billionaires, you know, this annual income. Well, in the judicial, just to call attention to this point, because there is a link to the slide next, I'm just going to see my time here. There are two new patents, which, when they win these two, at the time of 1945, After the sentence, Monsanto comes and says: "I have two patents." It's the transparency that we're talking about here. It's not possible to sign a contract without the patent. If the doctor is paying annually, this is a auto-replicable, what does it justify to firm a contract? I have a clause of this contract here. It's a generic contract, I have a copyright intellectual contract. I don't have any NPI, because I need patents. How do I register a contract because I don't have the number of patents? Monsanto uses a term "bundle of rights", "fez de direito". Quais direitos são esses? The company doesn't respond. The Judicial Poder Judicial says: "It's generic. What is your right?" The only right that the company has, legitimate and that the producer pays are patents. The patents win? No. Now I have a "bun of rights". It's not just patents. I work with the efficiency of the technology. Where is this? Where does this admit? Our legislation doesn't admit it. It's 20 years. It's a technique to perpetuate this legal fee. This is perpetuated by 22, 23, 25, some technologies, for 30 years. This is totally illegal. Let's go here because it's time to finish. So, I've already said that... Here is just to show a little bit of history. I will pass here, because I already talked about the sentence, the apelation. All the rural products were vitorious to say that the patents are vented and that they should not be able to pay royalties and more. They should be able to pay royalties for the 2018-2020. The product has no one decision favorable by the TJ Mato Grosso and by the Supreme Court. - The first question is, Here I tell you. Look at this agreement that all of them will say here. This is a contract of adhesion. The producer doesn't discuss, he doesn't sit on the table. The company never sits with the producer, nor with the associations. I can't pay for what I want and I can't pay for what I want. And if you don't pay for the money, you'll take 7,5%. Is that or not? So, Look at this absurdity. "Inobservance of obligations to be considered to be a overvalued rights of intellectual property." What are these? What's the potential? What is the transparency of this? What is the previsibility? The producer will pay when? The title will win when? Is this patent valid or not? The company doesn't answer. This is a commercial strategy, it has to end in Brazil. It's only here that we admit something like this. This can't happen. The producer has to sit on the table and discuss in terms of equality and conditions, how will this contract be written? And the producer will not be opposed to the payment, but he has to know when he will pay. Otherwise, there is no justification for a contract like this. The NPI, curious to note, when the State talked about this contract, in the judicial NPI said that this contract is null, it's not a object. The National Propriedade of the Seu said that. What's the name? Can I just go a little bit? Thank you. Here's the parecer of the NPI. What does the NPI say? "We consider the term of intimação directed to this autarquia, we seem to think that the Clause of C. 3, in fact, doesn't specify which was giving support to the Reuters, which was extremely generic. Therefore, as a clause inserted, That the clause would be null by offense to 104.2, having an apparent indetermination of this object. This was the National Instituto of Prophecy of the Social Security. These are not the words of the producer, it's the NPI. And the producer continues to be subjected to this. Bye. I wanted to call you attention to some projects. One project from the federal federal Marussa Boldrin You-- I'm going to finish. I have a project from Kim Kataguiri. What do these projects? Justly, they are a change in the law of industrial property, which I think is our biggest goal, because it is a invenção auto-replicable that needs of a specific topic to deal with this. The producer needs to know what are the patents, the producer needs to know when he will pay the royalties, needs to be transparent, this security, that when he's signed the contract, the company has the obligation to inform him. It's different from a phone that if you sell a phone, you don't pay more rents. The law of industrial property was to regulate this situation. This is the principle of exaustion of the rights. The money is not cobra. The Monsanto cobra anualmente. The rule must be different. "No need to alter the law, it's there." But it's good, but for the agronegócio, it wasn't meant to be a plan. So, it needs, yes, this change. And I ask the attention of the two of these two projects, of sum importance. Unfortunately, the two are archived. But they are projects that bring a luma, bring a light to this situation, not for the producer to pay royalties. and will know what he is paying. In contrapartida, there is another project that tries to extend the prazo, repristinar the paragraph that was judged in constitucional. by the Supreme Tribunal Federal. I think I can pass. Well, it's all. The last slide, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So, our intent here is to fight this abuse the ability to use the intellectual property, give this legal security for the product, which the product has not in these 20 years of relationship, and here, to balance the inovation, concorrent and legal security. Thank you, deputado.