SEP Litigation in Brazil: Five Big Developments in 2025

Brazil’s SEP (standard-essential patent) landscape had interesting developments in 2025. What had long been a promising—but relatively contained—jurisdiction for SEP enforcement became, last year, a more visible and systematized venue for global strategies.

This article examines five big developments that best capture the year, ranging from case volumes and forum concentration to procedural innovations, FRAND-centered proof structures, and the first wave of connected-car SEP disputes.

1) A step-change in volume and growing forum concentration

2025 marked a sharp acceleration in ICT-related litigation activity in Brazil, with Rio de Janeiro consolidating its position as the preferred forum for patent owners bringing infringement actions (see below data on public cases only; other cases filed under seal might not be reported):

This jump in filings suggests that Brazil (and particularly Rio) is being used more systematically as part of global SEP/NEP enforcement playbooks. The concentration also aligns with the perception that Rio courts can deliver strong and fast injunctive relief.

At the same time, the rise in non-infringement actions in São Paulo state courts points to a parallel trend: implementers are increasingly taking the initiative, seeking declaratory relief and building a domestic record to try to counter injunction pressure, while also shaping negotiating leverage (see more on that trend below).

Just as notable as the increase in filings is the diversification of what is being asserted. In 2025, cases involved technologies spanning (among others) AAC, EVS, H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC, 4G, and 5G. This reflects a broader set of monetized portfolios and a wider range of targeted products and services, from streaming/video implementations to mobile devices and network features.

2) “Interim license” experiments

Another notable development was the growing effort by implementers to test “interim license” theories, seeking court protection that would allow continued implementation while FRAND/royalty terms are debated. The idea is familiar internationally: if injunction risk is the main leverage point, an interim license (or a court-supervised payment mechanism) can neutralize that leverage pending a final FRAND outcome.

However, in Brazil, interim-license filings have not (so far) provided a consistently effective safe harbor against injunction exposure.

First, Rio courts began moving infringement cases faster, typically through early court-appointed expert involvement and focused hearings designed to give the judge enough technical footing to decide interim relief and move toward a first-instance merits judgment on an accelerated timetable (see more on that below). This could impact the practical value of a São Paulo based initiative; even if the declaratory case remained pending, the Rio infringement case could reach the merits quickly enough to generate a permanent injunction.

Second, Rio courts have been reluctant to let first-filed São Paulo actions dictate forum. Even where defendants raised venue or connection arguments to push infringement disputes into São Paulo, the Rio courts have tended to hold onto jurisdiction and proceed.

A good illustration is JVC v. Hisense. Hisense filed a non-infringement action in São Paulo against JVC and several other members of the Access Advance pool. Later, JVC brought an infringement action against Hisense in Rio. Despite acknowledging a degree of connection between the disputes, the Rio court refused to decline jurisdiction to São Paulo or consolidate the matters. Instead, it treated the emerging pattern (São Paulo declaratory first, Rio infringement second, followed by an immediate request to “pull” the Rio case) as a warning sign of procedural manipulation.

A key factor in the Rio court’s reasoning was Hisense’s decision to aggregate a very large group of defendants and multiple patents in a single case. The court noted this design could “overburden” the case and make a swift merits outcome unrealistic, supporting the court’s view that sending the dispute to São Paulo would delay, rather than facilitate, effective resolution.

Hisense pursued an interlocutory appeal and initially even obtained a suspensive effect to halt the Rio case. But shortly thereafter, the reporting appellate judge reconsidered and revoked the suspensive effect, holding that the court-appointed expert examination should continue since it created no irreparable harm and served effectiveness and the reasonable duration of proceedings. Courts granted PI against Hisense and the rest is history (https://ipfray.com/brazilian-pis-and-bad-faith-litigation-sanctions-hit-hisense-newly-discovered-european-video-lawsuits-against-hisense-disney-rakuten-dazn/).

3) Merits based Preliminary injunctions?

Historically, one reason Brazil drew SEP attention was the perceived availability of preliminary injunctions, sometimes even ex parte, grounded on unilateral technical submissions.

In 2025, ex parte preliminary injunctions became an exception, as parts of the Rio de Janeiro judiciary began steering SEP cases into an “expert-first, expedited” track aimed at producing a faster merits outcome.

This shift was reinforced by a case-management template developed by Judge Victor Agustin Torres (currently sitting at the 6^th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro), which has been replicated by other business courts in Rio, though not uniformly.

In this standardized case-management decision, the court acknowledges that prior practice had become fragmented: some cases saw injunctive relief granted without any prior court-appointed technical review, while others required (at least) a simplified expert review. This created what judges described as legal uncertainty with a “lottery” effect and disruptive consequences for the local market.

As such, rather than front-loading injunctive relief, the court issues a scheduling order early in the case and orders a court‑appointed expert examination on infringement. Injunctive relief is assessed only after the expert is heard in a dedicated hearing.

One remarkable example is the PI granted on the Interdigital v Disney case.

4) FRAND moves to the center stage

A fourth—and arguably the most consequential—development in 2025 was the relocation of FRAND issues from the margins of SEP disputes to the heart of the litigation, with two Rio decisions becoming key reference points.

In the DivX v. Netflix appeal, the 5^th Private Law Chamber of the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice (TJRJ) upheld the injunctive relief and damages awarded in the trial judgment, rejecting the implementer’s attempt to “trade” those remedies for a FRAND-royalties regime.

The decisive reasoning was that the Brazilian patent system is structurally binary: unauthorized use is infringement (triggering cessation and civil liability), while lawful use is licensed use. In that framing, a court‑imposed “FRAND royalties instead of injunction” solution is treated as a legally unsupported middle category.

An important pillar of that judgment was procedural, though. The judges held that the SEP/FRAND defense was not built as a properly formed technical controversy at the proper time: it was not included among the disputed issues listed in the case-management order, and Netflix failed to produce evidence directed to essentiality (questions to the expert, expert analysis, documents from recognized bodies). Instead, Netflix attempted to introduce the issue only at the appellate stage as an “alternative strategy.”

Around the same period, in Dolby v. Roku, the 6^th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro issued a decision stating that when a patent is declared essential, the plaintiff must prove not only infringement but also that it complies with FRAND licensing, especially the non-discrimination element (i.e., licensing the market on equal terms). The decision references the global debate after Huawei v. ZTE and frames FRAND assessment as tied to identifying a “willing licensee” and, ultimately, the availability of injunctive relief. It also notes how difficult it is for courts to “set a number” for FRAND royalties, describing the exercise as inherently artificial compared to market price formation.

The decision organizes the case around confidential disclosure of comparable licenses, and an examination by a court-appointed expert, who will organize the data and test the justifications of the parties’ positions. The goal is not to set a specific “FRAND rate”, but to answer a disjunctive question: is the patent holder’s offer FRAND or not? This will determine the availability of injunctive relief.

5) Automotive/Connected-Car SEPs arrive in Brazilian courts

In 2025, we saw the first 4G/LTE patent assertions against automakers in Brazil. The first one was IP Bridge v. BYD, filed on June 25 and assigned to the 1^st Business Court of Rio de Janeiro. The preliminary injunction was granted ex-parte on July 11, 2025, reportedly ordering BYD to suspend the use of 4G connectivity feature in its vehicles within five days of service of the process, under a daily fine of BRL 20,000.00, capped at BRL 600,000.00

Since the case was filed under seal, the information publicly available is scarce. Press reports state that the order also required BYD to stop equipping vehicles with the allegedly infringing module and to disclose how many units were sold with the feature, to help quantify alleged damages. The dispute was framed as a classic “unlicensed use” claim: IP Bridge alleged that BYD was using the technology without a license, while stating that most of the market (over 85%) was licensed. This was highlighted in coverage of the injunctive relief.

BYD didn’t file an appeal against this PI, and the parties filed a joint brief on August 18, 2025, informing the court they had reached an out-of-court settlement.

In December 2025, right before the court’s in Brazil closed for the holidays, the automotive SEP theme accelerated with three additional lawsuits: two filed by Sun Patent Trust (against Great Wall Motor and Geely) and one by IP Bridge (against Great Wall Motor). All are members of the Avanci pool.

The three lawsuits were filed under seal on December 15 before the Rio de Janeiro State Courts, and assigned, respectively, to the 7^th Business Court (Hon. Victor Agustin Torres), the 2^nd Business Court (Hon. Marcelo Mondego), and the 1^st Business Court (Hon. Milena Morais).

On December 17, Hon. Torres issued a decision removing the seal from Sun Patent v. Great Wall Motor, warning that unjustified secrecy will not be tolerated and may be punished as contempt of court; declining to examine the PI request until after evidence has been produced under adversarial conditions; and setting a standardized, expert-led fast track that tees up FRAND as a burden issue.

For the expert examination, Hon. Torres appointed two experts: one engineer to examine infringement/technical issues, and another to analyze the FRAND-related data given the SEP framing. He also set a non-negotiable schedule with a report deadline (March 23, 2026) and an expert hearing (April 20, 2026).

Taken together, IP Bridge v. BYD and the Avanci-members filings show that automotive SEP litigation in Brazil is quickly evolving from a one-off headline to a repeatable enforcement pattern.

The Sun Patent v. Great Wall filing, in particular, illustrate a uniquely remedial theme: plaintiffs may try to characterize connectivity as a remotely enabled, optional feature and seek targeted “disablement” relief rather than a blunt sales ban. This may make an injunctive relief more “palatable” to courts, while still being disruptive within the automative context.

Conclusion

The spike in filings and the gravitational pull of Rio show that Brazil is no longer a peripheral jurisdiction in global SEP playbooks. At the same time, procedural innovations, especially expert-led fast tracks, are reshaping how injunctions, essentiality, and FRAND questions are litigated.

The net result is a litigation environment that is simultaneously more attractive for SEP holders (because of speed and remedial credibility) and more demanding (because technical and FRAND issues increasingly must be built early, under structured evidentiary discipline).

Looking ahead, the arrival of connected-car disputes will likely accelerate this evolution. As automotive connectivity becomes a repeat target, courts will be forced to refine how they calibrate remedies, especially where “disablement” relief may provide a middle path between tolerating unlicensed use and imposing blunt market disruption. If 2025 was the year Brazil entered the global SEP map in earnest, 2026 may be the year it begins to define its own procedural model.