Brazilian court lets Acer FRAND case proceed against Nokia, orders expert-led licensing review

Context: Acer and Nokia have been engaged in long-running negotiations over licenses to Nokia’s standard-essential patents (SEPs) covering video coding and Wi-Fi technologies. The dispute forms part of broader multi-jurisdiction SEP litigation involving Acer, ASUS, and Hisense. While the dispute with Hisense has been settled, proceedings involving Acer and ASUS remain ongoing. In Brazil, parallel proceedings are underway: Nokia brought infringement actions against Acer and ASUS in Rio de Janeiro, while Acer filed a declaratory judgment action in São Paulo seeking a determination that Nokia must license its patents covering Advanced Video Coding (AVC, H.264) and High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC, H.265), as well as Wi-Fi, on FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms, that certain asserted patents are not essential to the relevant standards, and requesting a provisional license as well as measures to protect the proceedings from interference by foreign courts, including an anti-antisuit injunction (AASI). 

What’s new: On March 20, 2026, Judge Gustavo Cesar Mazutti of the 2nd Business and Arbitration Court in São Paulo issued a combined decision denying Nokia’s motion to dismiss and setting out the procedural framework for the case going forward. While the dismissal of Nokia’s jurisdictional objections was addressed briefly, the decision primarily functions as a case management order, allowing the dispute between Acer and Nokia to proceed and establishing a two-stage expert process. The court rejected Nokia’s reliance on an arbitration clause in a non-disclosure agreement and deferred any decision on interim relief pending the outcome of the expert analysis.

Direct impact: The decision allows Acer to pursue its FRAND and licensing claims in the São Paulo court, while requiring Nokia to defend the action on the merits. The parties will now proceed to a court-ordered expert phase focused on licensing terms, with no immediate determination on interim relief or patent essentiality. The decision is appealable, and an appellate court may stay the proceedings pending review.

Wider ramifications:

• The decision illustrates an evidence-driven approach to SEP disputes in São Paulo, with the court prioritizing expert analysis before addressing licensing terms or interim relief. This contrasts with the United Kingdom, where courts in some cases have intervened earlier in FRAND disputes, including by granting interim licenses at an early stage. In those proceedings, however, courts typically rely on expert evidence presented by the parties themselves, rather than appointing a court expert.
• The ruling also frames FRAND obligations through a contractual lens, treating licensing commitments as enforceable undertakings while referring to competition law principles, such as those in Huawei v ZTE, as informative rather than determinative. This combination of procedural caution and contractual reasoning may influence how parties approach SEP disputes before the São Paulo court.