2 resultados citaram: Impactos políticos e jurídicos da tecnologia – aspectos históricos e conceituais da inovação e da propriedade intelectual

The refusal to license standard essential patents (SEPs) under FRAND terms by a dominant rightsholder is subject to increasing scrutiny by competition authorities in Brazil and abroad. This paper examines the conditions under which such conduct constitutes an abuse of dominant position under Article 36, §3, IV, of Brazilian Competition Law (Law No. 12,529/2011). Based on a bibliographic and documentary analysis of national and international literature on SEPs and FRAND commitments, it examines the landmark Huawei v. ZTE ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union and analyses the nascent experience of CADE, with particular attention to the administrative inquiry opened against Ericsson in April 2025. The paper concludes that Brazilian competition law already provides the normative tools to address such abuse but lacks systematic case law and clear analytical standards. Based on these findings, the paper proposes a concrete agenda for CADE, including the adoption of a procedural standard analogous to the European model and an institutional coordination with INPI for the issuance of a sector-specific guidance document.

This article examines the legal treatment of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in the field of information and communication technologies (ICTs) within the Brazilian judicial system, with particular emphasis on disputes involving standards such as 5G and HEVC. It starts from the premise that SEPs protect technologies that are indispensable for the implementation of technical standards and, therefore, must be licensed under FRAND terms (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) so as to reconcile patent exclusivity with competition law, technological interoperability, and the public interest. The study analyzes Brazilian case law and procedural practice regarding issues such as patent infringement, patent invalidity, jurisdiction, injunctive relief, confidentiality, and technical evidence, highlighting the increasing specialization of the business courts of Rio de Janeiro in SEP-related litigation. It identifies a judicial trend toward requiring more robust proof of patent essentiality, infringement, and compliance with FRAND licensing obligations. By comparing the Brazilian experience of the JVC v. Multilaser and Hisense (2025) with a foreign reference, especially the precedent Huawei v. ZTE (2015), the article concludes that the adequate resolution of disputes involving SEPs requires a balance between valid patent exclusivity, legal certainty, good business faith, competition and technological development.