Brazil: Brazil offers attractive battleground for enforcing patents

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Brazil: Brazil offers attractive battleground for enforcing patents

Sponsored by

daniel-400px.png

Although the amount of patent litigation in Brazil is far from the level of litigation in the US, patent infringement actions are very common in the jurisdiction. Such actions are the most effective measure against infringers, since preliminary injunctions are widely available. This makes Brazil very attractive as an additional battlefield for worldwide patent disputes.

Brazil has a truly independent judiciary system, and judges are doing their best to enforce the rule of law. In contrast to other BRICS countries, there is no bias against foreign companies. A great number of infringement actions initiated against local companies are filed by foreign entities, and their chances of success are basically the same as those of any other plaintiff.

In comparison with the US, the standards for obtaining injunctive relief in Brazil are much lower than one might expect as, for instance, there is no need to give notice to the defendant, and the parties are allowed to have ex parte in chambers meetings with the judges, meaning that plaintiffs are often able to obtain preliminary injunctive relief even before the defendants are served with the summons. In certain places, for example, Rio de Janeiro, plaintiffs are able to obtain injunctions more often than not.

Moreover, obtaining preliminary injunctive relief is possible even if the asserted patents cover standard-essential technologies, as in Vringo v ZTE and Ericsson v TCT. In both cases, the defendants were prevented from manufacturing, using, selling, offering and importing the infringing goods in Brazil. A preliminary injunction may also include search and seizure measures or orders for the defendant to present copies of contracts and other relevant documents, as well as notifications to third parties and to customs authorities to make relevant information about their dealings with the defendant available.

Generally, to obtain injunctive relief, the plaintiff must present sufficient documentary evidence to establish (i) the likelihood of eventually prevailing on the merits and (ii) that the result sought with the lawsuit could be frustrated or harmed if an injunction is not granted (i.e. the plaintiff must establish that granting the preliminary injunction is an urgent matter). Alternative ways of obtaining preliminary injunctions occur when the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant is presenting defences and objections in an abusive way, or that the defendant is trying to delay the proceedings, or if the defendant is not able to create reasonable doubt regarding the facts alleged by the plaintiff.

Additionally, in order to maximise the chances of obtaining an injunction, it is usual for plaintiffs to present several technical opinions from well-known local and foreign experts, normally professors teaching at renowned universities, in support of their arguments.

In a nutshell, the lower standards for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief make Brazil a very favourable battleground to enforce patent rights in global litigation. This is an opportunity for non-practising entities (NPEs) and a substantial risk for corporations facing infringement claims.

Ricardo Nunes

Daniel Legal & IP Strategy

Av. República do Chile,

230, 3rd Floor

Centro, Rio de Janeiro

20031-170, Brazil

Tel: +55 21 2102 4212

www.daniel-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Novo Nordisk losing patent rights covering Ozempic in Canada and a US Supreme Court decision favouring Ed Sheeran were also among the top talking points
The court will hand down its ruling in Iconix v Dream Pairs on Tuesday, June 24, in a case that concerns post-sale confusion
Developments included a stay in a row concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction and a timeline for the rollout of the long-awaited new CMS
Jorg Thomaier, who has been head of IP at the German pharma company since 2010, will leave later this year and hand the reins to the company’s head of patents
Companies must conduct thorough IP due diligence – even if it may not be mandatory
Celia Cheah at Wong & Partners in Malaysia says she is aiming to tap into the Baker McKenzie member firm’s international network and expand its IP portfolio
A team of partners that joined Boies Schiller Flexner say they would like to double the firm’s patent litigation capabilities
Gift this article