Context:
- Shortly before Christmas, JVCKENWOOD (JVC) and NEC won Brazilian preliminary injunctions (PIs) against Hisense, and a few hours later, Access Advance listed the TV maker as a licensee (December 20, 2025 ip fray article). It is not important whether the license agreement was concluded before the Brazilian ruling. The PIs were foreseeable.
- The PI order in the JVC v. Hisense case (December 19, 2025 ip fray article) also imposed sanctions on Hisense for litigation misconduct.
What’s new: In a February 3, 2026 decision that has meanwhile become public, Judge Victor Agustin Cunha Jaccoud Diz Torres of the 6th Business Court of the Rio de Janeiro State Judiciary decided to uphold those sanctions regardless of JVC, further to the settlement, having withdrawn the related request. The sanctions amount to 5% of the settlement value, which in this case (because it is a multi-year agreement) relates to only the first year of the term. The court will collect and keep the money; JVC is not involved as it has waived its related rights under the settlement agreement. This is an unusual and potentially unprecedented decision that reflects the extent to which the court deems Hisense’s litigation tactics in Brazil, which involved a declaratory judgment (DJ) action of enormous proportions (September 24, 2025 ip fray article), reprehensible. In the PI decision, the court had noted that the DJ action, given the number of parties and patents, consisted of 144 claims. Hisense also tried to derail the Rio de Janeiro proceedings through an interlocutory appeal.
Direct impact: Hisense no longer has to deal with another company, but it is now duking it out with the court. It can try to get this decision overturned on appeal.
Wider ramifications:
- Last month, Hisense took a license from Nokia (January 8, 2026 ip fray article). Its former co-defendants Acer and ASUS are still litigating (February 3, 2026 ip fray article).
- The fact that the court pursues sanctions even in the absence of a party seeking them may deter other litigants from employing similar tactics. It shows that Brazilian courts mean business when it comes to standard-essential patent (SEP) enforcement.
Here’s the Brazilian court decision (in Portuguese):
This is an unofficial translation:
Rio de Janeiro State Court
Capital District
6th Business Court of the Capital District
COMMON CIVIL PROCEEDING # 3014025-85.2025.8.19.0001/RJ
PLAINTIFF: JVCKENWOOD CORPORATION (“JVC”)
DEFENDANT: MULTILASER INDUSTRIAL S.A.
DEFENDANT: HISENSE GORENJE DO BRASIL IMPORTACAO E COMERCIO DE ELETRODOMESTICO LTDA.
DECISION
For approval of the agreement, the parties shall submit its terms.
In addition, the fine for malicious prosecution, which is calculated based on the value of the agreement, must be paid within fifteen (15) days, under penalty of enrollment as an active debt. This is, in effect, a penalty for an act that undermines the dignity of the jurisdiction, which, for that very reason, exceeds the sphere of availability of the parties; the treatment of compensation for procedural losses and damages would be different, as it is at the discretion of the interested party, but this was not arbitrated in the specific case.
Without prejudice, a payment order for the remaining expert fees shall be issued immediately.
Document signed electronically by VICTOR AGUSTIN JACCOUD DIZ TORRES, Judge, on March 2nd, 2026, at 12:29:26 p.m., pursuant to Article 1, III, “b” of Law 11.419/2006. The authenticity of the document can be verified at https://eproc1g.tjrj.jus.br/eproc/externo_controlador.php?acao=consulta_autenticidade_documentos, by entering verification code 190001315931v3 and CRC code b5b2182c.
3014025-85.2025.8.19.000
1190001315931 .V3
Counsel
JVC and NEC were represented against Hisense by Licks Attorneys’ Rodolfo Barreto, Bruno Falque, and Amanda Terra.