Context: Japanese patent holder IP Bridge is pursuing an infringement action against Chinese smartphone manufacturer Transsion and Brazilian technology company Positivo before the 3rd Business Court of Rio de Janeiro. The dispute concerns a Brazilian patent relating to the H.264/AVC video compression standard and a licensing offer through the Via Licensing Alliance AVC patent pool, formerly administered by MPEG LA.
Whatâs new: The court has rejected Transsion and Positivoâs request for a separate economic examination of IP Bridgeâs compliance with FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) obligations, finding that previous German judgments addressing the same licensing program and Brazilian appellate case law provided sufficient evidence to dispense with it.
Direct impact: IP Bridge avoids a separate FRAND economic examination, while the technical examination of alleged patent infringement will proceed. Transsion and Positivo have 15 days to submit evidence of good-faith licensing negotiations to contest allegations of holdout.
Wider ramifications: The decision builds on Brazilian case law supporting Via LAâs pool-based licensing model, including the preliminary injunction in Panasonic v. HMD (April 17, 2026 ip fray articleâ ). It further illustrates how earlier domestic and foreign judicial findings may influence the assessment of licensing arrangements in subsequent FRAND disputes, subject to case-specific scrutiny.
Prior German rulings make fresh FRAND examination unnecessary
The Brazilian court relied primarily on two DĂźsseldorf Regional Court decisions involving IP Bridge, patents from the same family, and the H.264/AVC licensing program. It found that the transition from MPEG LA to Via had not substantially changed the licensing terms, making the German judgments directly relevant.
In proceedings against ZTE, the DĂźsseldorf court had found IP Bridgeâs offer FRAND-compliant, citing its transparent royalty structure, publicly available standard agreement, and widespread adoption. In a parallel dispute against Huawei, it rejected objections concerning uniform licensing across technological profiles, royalty caps, and volume exemptions, while noting the disadvantages of separate bilateral negotiations.
The Rio court treated these findings as persuasive evidence of the licensing programâs objective reasonableness. It also cited a Munich I Regional Court ruling suggesting that certain HEVC patent pool rates could undervalue the licensed portfolios, although it assigned that decision only corroborative weight because it concerned a different standard. Invoking procedural economy and Article 370 of Brazilâs Code of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that a fresh economic examination of an already scrutinized licensing structure was unnecessary.
Pool licensing and implementer conduct remain distinct questions
The court also relied on the Rio de Janeiro Court of Appealsâ ruling in Panasonic v. HMD, which concerned Viaâs AAC patent pool. The appellate court had recognized that making a publicly available pool license accessible on FRAND terms could satisfy a patent holderâs obligations without requiring a separate bilateral offer. Drawing on this ruling, the judge distinguished between the objective reasonableness of licensing terms, including transparency and non-discrimination, and an implementerâs individual negotiating conduct, including engagement with offers, counterproposals, and potential holdout.
IP Bridge alleged that Via had repeatedly contacted Transsion without receiving meaningful engagement or a concrete counteroffer. Referring to Panasonic v. HMD, the judge observed that rejecting an available pool license in favor of bilateral negotiations without presenting specific objections or alternative terms could be inconsistent with the conduct expected of a willing licensee. However, the court did not conclusively establish holdout. Instead, it gave the defendants 15 days to produce documentary evidence of active and good-faith participation in negotiations, finding such evidence more appropriate than economic expertise for assessing their conduct.
Via cases gain influence in Brazilian FRAND jurisprudence
The decisions in Panasonic v. HMD and IP Bridge v. Transsion and Positivo address two complementary aspects of pool-based licensing. While the former provides appellate-level support for satisfying FRAND obligations through a patent pool, the latter demonstrates how previous judicial findings may influence the evidentiary requirements in subsequent disputes.
Although Panasonic v. HMD concerned the AAC rather than the AVC patent pool, its broader principles informed the latest ruling, alongside the DĂźsseldorf judgments directly addressing the AVC licensing framework. This distinction highlights the different roles that decisions involving the same licensing program and those concerning other pools may play in future cases.
For patent holders, earlier favorable rulings may help establish the reasonableness of licensing arrangements, while implementers retain the ability to challenge specific terms and negotiating conduct. However, neither decision establishes blanket FRAND compliance for Viaâs programs, and the relevance of previous findings remains dependent on the circumstances of each dispute.
Court and counsel
3rd Business Court of Rio de Janeiro.
IP Bridge is being represented by Licks Attorneysâ Carlos Aboim, Gabriel Mathias, Youssef Yunes Borges Pires, Ana Carolina Marques da Cunha, and Paolo Maiolino; and SalomĂŁo Advogadosâ Luis Felipe SalomĂŁo Filho and Alice Moreira Studart da Fonseca.