Bill pending in Brazil’s Senate would add anti-interference (including anti-interim-license) provisions to patent law: draconian sanctions

Context:

• The willingness of UK judges to grant interim licenses and force patent holders to grant global licenses on terms deemed fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) by the English courts has raised concerns in different places. The Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Court of Appeal (CoA) held a hearing yesterday, and while it rejects interference, it is unclear how far it will go to effectively combat such overreach (May 29, 2026 ip fray article).
• Recently promulgated Chinese regulations targeting extraterritorial overreach by foreign jurisdictions (April 13, 2026 ip fray article) could also be invoked in connection with patent litigation, though the application of the new rules may in the short term be focused on other types of issues.
• A bill to amend the country’s patent law (Bill No. 2,210/2022) is pending in the Brazillian Senate.

What’s new: This morning, a senator’s proposed amendment to the patents bill for the purpose of combating interference with Brazilian patent enforcement (through such measures as antisuit injunctions and interim licenses) was made public. It would add a new Paragraph 3 to Article 209 of the Brazilian Patent Statute Statute #9,279/1996). Under the amendment, a judge presiding over a Brazilian patent case could impose different penalties on a party for an attempt to use foreign courts for the purpose of diminishing the effectiveness of Brazilian patent enforcement:

• suspension of business activities (of a company or corporate group) in Brazil until the foreign interference goes away
• fines that would cumulatively amount to more than four times the penalties ordered abroad
• contempt-of-court sanctions that could deprive a party of its procedural rights in ongoing litigation

Direct impact: Senator Carlos Portinho, a graduate of a leading law school who had a career in public and private practice and has taken a strong interest in patent policy, now needs to build support for this proposal.

Wider ramifications: It is interesting to see two BRICS countries take the lead in taking (China) or at least debating (Brazil) proposals to combat usurpation. The European Union should seriously consider something similar if it believes that its Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) should be amended in the short term. Sooner or later, U.S. courts or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will also have to deal with extraterritorial overreach affecting patent enforcement.