Brazil remains a key jurisdiction for Standard Essential Patent (SEP) disputes, standing out as the fifth-largest smartphone market in the world and home to over 160 million internet users. With these dynamics, the country has become a litigation hotspot for SEP enforcement—affecting both patent holders and implementers. In 2025 alone, nine SEP infringement lawsuits were filed, with six of them brought before the Rio de Janeiro State Court, which has emerged as the primary venue for this type of litigation.

A Historically Patent-Holder-Friendly Forum, Now Shifting

Over the years, Brazil developed a reputation as a plaintiff-friendly forum, where preliminary injunctions are frequently granted in favor of SEP holders. However, few cases proceed to a decision on the merits, as most disputes settle after injunctive relief is issued. Notably, no SEPs challenged through nullity actions have been invalidated to date.

That said, a gradual shift is emerging—particularly concerning the issuance of preliminary injunctions. Brazilian courts appear to be taking steps toward a more balanced approach between SEP owners and implementers.

The DivX vs. Hisense Case: A Turning Point?

In a landmark case last year, DivX sued Hisense and its commercial partners in Brazil for allegedly infringing a video patent essential to the HEVC standard. While a preliminary injunction was initially granted—ordering the defendants to cease use of the technology—the court later revoked the injunction, allowing sales and manufacturing to continue.

Crucially, the court established that SEP holders must demonstrate not only infringement, but also that they have offered a FRAND-compliant license before seeking injunctive relief. Although no precise definition of FRAND was provided, the court emphasized that non-discrimination is the most critical factor in assessing FRAND compliance.

Furthermore, the judge ruled that the burden of proof lies with the SEP owner to show that their licensing terms are non-discriminatory—particularly since implementers typically lack access to comparable licensing agreements.

While this decision is not a binding precedent and the case has not been resolved on the merits, it represents an important milestone—the first ruling by a Brazilian court explicitly requiring patentees to demonstrate FRAND compliance before obtaining an injunction.

The Dolby Case: Reinforcing the New Standard

This shift was reaffirmed in a recent lawsuit brought by Dolby against Shenzhen Transsion and Positivo, involving patents covering the AAC audio standard. The 1st Business Court of Rio de Janeiro denied a preliminary injunction after reviewing an anti-injunction brief submitted by the defendants.

The court found no imminent harm to Dolby’s rights, noting that the defendants acknowledged the use of the relevant technologies (covered by patents PI 0111362-3, PI 0009138-3, and PI 0014642-0), had negotiated licensing terms, and even provided financial guarantees for payment. The dispute appeared to be the result of miscommunication during negotiations, rather than refusal to license.

The judge also highlighted Dolby’s failure to demonstrate FRAND compliance from the outset, echoing the position adopted in the Hisense case.

FRAND Compliance is Crucial for Injunctive Relief

These recent decisions underscore the growing importance of documenting licensing negotiations and proving compliance with FRAND obligations, especially regarding non-discriminatory terms, when seeking preliminary injunctions in Brazil.

While the legal landscape remains favorable to patent holders in many respects, these rulings signal a more balanced judicial approach that requires transparency and fairness in SEP licensing practices.

CADE Demands Details from Ericsson on 5G Patent Agreement with Lenovo/Motorola

Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) has ordered Ericsson to provide detailed information regarding a recent agreement reached with Lenovo (owner of Motorola) amid an ongoing dispute over 5G technology patents.

The case was brought before CADE after Motorola accused Ericsson of abusing its dominant market position by allegedly creating barriers to licensing the technology. Earlier this month, both companies reached a global settlement. Consequently, on May 4, Ericsson requested the case be dismissed.

However, case rapporteur Gustavo Augusto stated that further clarification is needed from the Swedish company. CADE is now requiring Ericsson to submit a complete copy of the agreement signed with Motorola, as well as disclose the pricing and licensing terms for the 5G-related patents—or indicate whether pricing is still subject to arbitration or similar procedures.

Additionally, Ericsson must explain the criteria used—or to be used—for offering any discounts relative to its initial public licensing offer of USD 5 per device. The company must also confirm whether the same terms agreed upon with Motorola will be extended to third parties to ensure non-discriminatory licensing conditions.

CADE emphasized that will review the information submitted and determine the next steps:
“Our role is not to protect Company A or B, but to safeguard the market and the consumer. We need to understand how this agreement will impact the broader 5G market. Based on that, we’ll decide whether or not to proceed with the investigation.”

In its request to dismiss the case, Ericsson stated that the agreement with Lenovo was global in scope and intended to resolve the patent licensing dispute entirely.

“As part of the settlement, all ongoing lawsuits and administrative proceedings initiated by either company in any jurisdiction—including Ericsson’s patent infringement case in Brazil and Lenovo’s complaint before CADE—will be withdrawn,” the company said.

When Lenovo/Motorola first approached CADE in December of last year, it had agreed to pay Ericsson’s self-declared licensing rate for 5G patents in Brazil while awaiting a FRAND global cross-license agreement, either mutually agreed upon or court-mandated. However, Lenovo claimed that Ericsson was leveraging the Brazilian jurisdiction to force a global settlement under “extortionate terms,” threatening Motorola’s operations in the country.

Ericsson Reaffirms Commitment to Fair 5G Licensing Terms

In a recent statement presented to CADE, Ericsson confirmed it “remains prepared to grant licenses for its 5G patents to mobile device manufacturers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, in line with licenses already granted to comparable licensees, including Lenovo.”

The company emphasized that it will continue to honor its contractual commitment under the ETSI IPR Policy to offer FRAND terms for its standard-essential 5G patents.

“To avoid any doubt, Ericsson clarifies that, when making future offers to 5G smartphone manufacturers, it will take into account the licenses—including the one with Lenovo—granted to other comparable licensees.”

The case remains under review and is awaiting a final decision.

Looking Ahead

While Brazil remains a stronghold for SEP enforcement, these recent cases suggest a growing willingness to scrutinize FRAND obligations and anti-competitive behavior. Implementers may find more room to challenge patent holders in preliminary injunction disputes, making Brazil’s SEP litigation landscape more dynamic than ever.

Stay tuned for further developments in this evolving space.