Last month, ip fray reported on the settlement of two major, global standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes: Nokia and Amazon (March 31, 2025 ip fray article) and Ericsson and Lenovo (April 3, 2025 ip fray article). While the former settlement is final, Ericsson and Lenovo are still in the middle of resolving some terms through binding arbitration. However, both had significant consequences for SEP licensing. In Ericsson’s settlement with Lenovo, for example, the question of UK interim licenses that was meant to go all the way to the UK Supreme Court, was stopped in its tracks (although this could be resolved in some other pending cases in the UK).
Nokia and Ericsson’s respective enforcement campaigns against Amazon and Lenovo were also filed in Brazil, while Ericsson v. Lenovo was Colombia’s second-ever major global patent infringement lawsuit. The latter also marked the second instance ever in which an SEP owner successfully obtained preliminary injunctions (PIs) in Colombia.
Generally, Brazil and Colombia have become increasingly attractive venues for SEP enforcement. In a podcast episode released in March, ip fray discussed opportunities for both patentees and licensees in those Latin American jurisdictions with Carlos Aboim of Brazil-based Licks Attorneys and Carlos Olarte of Colombia-based OlarteMoure (March 5, 2025 ip fray article).
ip fray caught up with Mr. Aboim and Mr. Olarte again to break down how the Colombian and Brazilian prongs of these most recent settlements played out.
On November 20, 2023, Ericsson filed 30 patent infringement complaints with PI requests against Lenovo, Motorola Colombia and three of their main distributors in the Civil Circuit Courts and the Judicial Delegature of the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC). It filed a further two complaints in the SIC in January 2025.
The patents-in-suit against Lenovo included:
Notably, the PI requests, which were processed ex parte, also asked the judges to order the Colombian Tax and Customs National Authority (DIAN) to prevent the entry of infringing devices into Colombian territory, effectively acting as a border measure. Within 30 days, the SIC granted four PI requests. Two of those were later confirmed by the Bogota Superior Tribunal, while two were revoked because the judge believed that market exclusion was not proportional and asked Ericsson to request alternative measures.
Ericsson pushed back against the court, arguing that no measures could address the “irreparable harm” caused by Lenovo’s conduct. Instead, Ericsson filed and obtained a non-compliance opinion from the Andean Community General Secretariat stating that one of the court’s two revocation decisions violated Andean law.
In Colombia, an Andean Community Member State, IP law is governed by Andean law (which means it pre-empts domestic legislation). Ericsson earned that opinion by arguing that some local PI requirements were not met.
OlarteMoure’s Carlos Olarte, who was counsel for Ericsson in Colombia, told ip fray that Colombia continues to be a relevant jurisdiction to obtain injunctive relief for SEP cases, and where judges are getting more acquainted with SEP litigation in each campaign. Ericsson’s suit against Lenovo was the second in which an SEP owner has successfully obtained PIs since 2022, but this time, more cases got to an appeal level, which brought the discussion to the Superior Tribunal of Bogota, he noted. There was also more discussion on FRAND compliance, the role of compliance in whether or not to grant a PI, and, within 18 months of filing the suit, Ericsson got very close to permanent injunctive relief.
Mr. Olarte hopes this will lead to broader discussion and maybe even the unification of the Tribunal’s positions on PI grants. The case, he added, also got to the Andean level, where Ericsson was successful in defending the correct application of the Andean law to patent infringement cases – this opinion will be relevant for all future PI requests in patent infringement cases.
“Very simply,” Mr. Olarte said, “it’s just another pressure point in the globe.” He believes a lot of SEP holders are seeing value in having patents filed not just in the major jurisdictions.
He referred to Lord Justice Arnold of the England & Wales Court of Appeal’s opinion on interim licenses testing the levels of comity (March 7, 2025 ip fray article):
“I think folks are saying no, they want to have patents in 70 different countries – part of the value of that is being able to assert them there too.”
Colombia is a mere fifth of the size of Brazil’s market, although equivalent in size to some major European economies such as the Netherlands, Sweden, or Belgium. But when it comes to Colombia’s overall role in obtaining the settlement, there is no doubt that the country acted as a “pressure point” for both sides, Mr. Olarte said.
“Colombia was one more piece in that equation that was at least prompting someone to say ‘it’s not just the UK Supreme Court decision we have to consider,’” he concluded.
Alongside Carlos R. Olarte, Ericsson was represented by OlarteMuore’s Lina María Romero Ariza, Liliana Galindo (who has now left the firm), David Contreras, Santiago Lombana, Camilo Cortés, and María Fernanda de los Ríos.
Meanwhile, a team at Brigard Castro represented Lenovo in Colombia, including Juan Pablo Cadena, Laura Angel Jaramillo, and Alejandra Castaño.
Nokia filed parallel complaints against Amazon and HP over BR0304565A, which has claims essential to the H.264 video coding standard, in the São Paulo State Court on November 30, 2023. A PI was granted the very next day (December 30, 2023), prohibiting Amazon from implementing its skip model technology in both:
Further, it held that if Amazon breached the court’s order, it would face a daily penalty of 100,000 Brazilian reais (US$17,000).
After Amazon filed an interlocutory appeal to revoke the PI (resulting in a 13-day stay of the PI), an appellate judge maintained the lower court’s decision. That PI was later confirmed by the Rio de Janeiro State Court on June 19, 2024.
Counsel to Nokia, Carlos Aboim of Licks Attorneys, told ip fray that expert examination was delayed for around six months due to Amazon’s delaying behavior against the court-appointed expert (the same one appointed to the HP case and that confirmed the patent’s essentiality and its infringement by HP). Due to those delays, the lawsuit was still at the final stages of expert examination when Nokia and Amazon settled, he noted.
The case saw a very important decision issued by the Rio de Janeiro State Court, stating that in patent infringement lawsuits – wherein the illicit act is performed throughout the whole country – the whole country is a rightful venue for filing the complaint and, therefore, the plaintiff can choose between any court, provided there is no abuse. This gives patentees a generous array of venues to choose from when enforcing SEPs in Brazil.
Both suits saw Brazil’s patent office (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial, or “BRPTO”) confirm the validity of Nokia’s BR0304565A patent.
Nokia was represented by Licks Attorneys’ Carlos Aboim, Gabriel Mathias, Victoria Garcia, and Rodolfo Barreto, as well as Salomão Law Firm’s Luis Salomão Filho, Paulo Cesar Salomão and Alice Studart.
Meanwhile, counsel for Amazon included a team at BMA Law Firm: Pedro Costa, Pedro Frankovsky, Felipe Galea, and Matheus Barcelos, as well as Max Fontes and Marcus Fontes at Fontes Tarso Ribeiro Law Firm.
Previous Post
There is no previous post
Back to all postsNext Post
There is no next post
Back to all postsRegister your email and receive our updates
