{"id":2409,"date":"2025-04-18T18:15:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-18T18:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=2409"},"modified":"2025-04-21T11:43:18","modified_gmt":"2025-04-21T11:43:18","slug":"pressure-points-latin-americas-role-in-amazon-nokia-ericsson-lenovo-settlements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/pressure-points-latin-americas-role-in-amazon-nokia-ericsson-lenovo-settlements\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cPressure points\u201d: Latin America\u2019s role in Amazon-Nokia, Ericsson-Lenovo settlements"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"\">Last month, <strong>ip fray <\/strong>reported on the settlement of two major, global standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes: Nokia and Amazon (<a href=\"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/nokia-amazon-settle-patent-dispute-with-license-agreement-fourth-video-streaming-deal-for-nokia\/\">March 31, 2025 <strong>ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>) and Ericsson and Lenovo (<a href=\"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/breaking-ericsson-lenovo-settle-multijurisdictional-patent-dispute-with-cross-license-agreement-will-arbitrate-details\/\">April 3, 2025 <strong>ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>). 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\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Nokia and Ericsson\u2019s respective enforcement campaigns against Amazon and Lenovo were also filed in Brazil, while <em>Ericsson v. Lenovo<\/em> was Colombia\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Generally, Brazil and Colombia have become increasingly attractive venues for SEP enforcement. In a podcast episode released in March, <strong>ip fray<\/strong> discussed opportunities for both patentees and licensees in those Latin American jurisdictions with <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lickslegal.com\/our-team\/carlos-aboim\">Carlos Aboim<\/a> of Brazil-based Licks Attorneys and <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/en\/team\/carlos-r-olarte\/\">Carlos Olarte<\/a> of Colombia-based OlarteMoure (<a href=\"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/podcast-on-sep-enforcement-in-latin-america-with-experienced-brazilian-colombian-patent-litigators\/\">March 5, 2025 <strong>ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\"><strong>ip fray<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Colombia: Ericsson v. Lenovo<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">The patents-in-suit against Lenovo included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0003461<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0003681<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0002920<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0007121<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0002959<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0004594<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0001225<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">NC2019\/0003327<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Notably, the PI requests, which were processed <em>ex parte<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Ericsson pushed back against the court, arguing that no measures could address the \u201cirreparable harm\u201d caused by Lenovo\u2019s conduct. Instead, Ericsson filed and obtained a non-compliance opinion from the Andean Community General Secretariat stating that one of the court\u2019s two revocation decisions violated Andean law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">OlarteMoure\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/en\/team\/carlos-r-olarte\/\">Carlos Olarte<\/a>, who was counsel for Ericsson in Colombia, told <strong>ip fray<\/strong> 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Mr. Olarte hopes this will lead to broader discussion and maybe even the unification of the Tribunal\u2019s 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 \u2013 this opinion will be relevant for all future PI requests in patent infringement cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">\u201cVery simply,\u201d Mr. Olarte said, \u201cit\u2019s just another pressure point in the globe.\u201d He believes a lot of SEP holders are seeing value in having patents filed not just in the major jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">He referred to Lord Justice Arnold of the England &amp; Wales Court of Appeal\u2019s opinion on interim licenses testing the levels of comity (<a href=\"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/ericsson-faces-monday-deadline-by-uk-appeals-court-to-promise-to-grant-interim-license-to-lenovo-but-is-appealing-lj-arnolds-errors-and-fallacies\/\">March 7, 2025 <strong>ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"\">\u201cI think folks are saying no, they want to have patents in 70 different countries \u2013 part of the value of that is being able to assert them there too.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Colombia is a mere fifth of the size of Brazil\u2019s market, although equivalent in size to some major European economies such as the Netherlands, Sweden, or Belgium. But when it comes to Colombia\u2019s overall role in obtaining the settlement, there is no doubt that the country acted as a \u201cpressure point\u201d for both sides, Mr. Olarte said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">\u201cColombia was one more piece in that equation that was at least prompting someone to say \u2018it\u2019s not just the UK Supreme Court decision we have to consider,\u2019\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Counsel<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Alongside Carlos R. Olarte, Ericsson was represented by <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/en\/\">OlarteMuore<\/a>\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/team\/lina-romero\/\">Lina Mar\u00eda Romero Ariza<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/liliana-galindo-d%C3%ADaz-46ba5046\/?originalSubdomain=co\">Liliana Galindo<\/a> (who has now left the firm), <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/en\/team\/david-contreras\/\">David Contreras<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/en\/team\/santiago-lombana\/\">Santiago Lombana<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/en\/team\/camilo-cortes\/\">Camilo Cort\u00e9s<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/olartemoure.com\/team\/maria-de-los-rios\/\">Mar\u00eda Fernanda de los R\u00edos<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Meanwhile, a team at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bc.com.co\/en\">Brigard Castro<\/a> represented Lenovo in Colombia, including <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bc.com.co\/en\/abogados\/juan-pablo-cadena\">Juan Pablo Cadena<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bc.com.co\/en\/abogados\/laura-angel-jaramillo\">Laura Angel Jaramillo<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bc.com.co\/en\/abogados\/giovanna-alejandra-castano-gonzalez\">Alejandra Casta\u00f1o<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Brazil: Nokia v. Amazon<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Nokia filed parallel complaints against Amazon and HP over <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.google.com\/patent\/BR0304565A\/\">BR0304565A<\/a>, which has claims essential to the H.264 video coding standard, in the S\u00e3o 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">all Amazon&#8217;s H.264-compliant devices; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">on the Prime Video platform<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Further, it held that if Amazon breached the court\u2019s order, it would face a daily penalty of 100,000 Brazilian reais (US$17,000).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">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\u2019s decision. That PI was later confirmed by the Rio de Janeiro State Court on June 19, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Counsel to Nokia, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lickslegal.com\/our-team\/carlos-aboim\">Carlos Aboim<\/a> of Licks Attorneys, told <strong>ip fray<\/strong> that expert examination was delayed for around six months due to Amazon\u2019s delaying behavior against the court-appointed expert (the same one appointed to the HP case and that confirmed the patent\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">The case saw a very important decision issued by the Rio de Janeiro State Court, stating that in patent infringement lawsuits \u2013 wherein the illicit act is performed throughout the whole country \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Both suits saw Brazil\u2019s patent office (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial, or \u201cBRPTO\u201d) confirm the validity of Nokia\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.google.com\/patent\/BR0304565A\/\">BR0304565A<\/a> patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Counsel<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Nokia was represented by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lickslegal.com\/\">Licks Attorneys<\/a>\u2019 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lickslegal.com\/our-team\/carlos-aboim\">Carlos Aboim<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lickslegal.com\/our-team\/gabriel-mathias\">Gabriel Mathias<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lickslegal.com\/our-team\/victoria-garcia\">Victoria Garcia<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lickslegal.com\/our-team\/rodolfo-barreto\">Rodolfo Barreto<\/a>, as well as <a href=\"https:\/\/salomaoadv.com.br\/en\/about\">Salom\u00e3o Law Firm<\/a>\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/salomaoadv.com.br\/advogados\/9\">Luis Salom\u00e3o Filho<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/salomaoadv.com.br\/en\/lawyers\/41\">Paulo Cesar Salom\u00e3o<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/salomaoadv.com.br\/en\/lawyers\/11\">Alice Studart<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"\">Meanwhile, counsel for Amazon included a team at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmalaw.com.br\/?lang=en-US\">BMA Law Firm<\/a>: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmapi.com.br\/en-US\/pi\/advogado\/pedro-costa\">Pedro Costa<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmalaw.com.br\/en-US\/advogado\/pedro-barroso\">Pedro Frankovsky<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmalaw.com.br\/en-US\/advogado\/felipe-galea\">Felipe Galea<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bmalaw.com.br\/advogado\/matheus-rodrigues-barcelos\">Matheus Barcelos<\/a>, as well as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/max-fontes-8712312b\/?originalSubdomain=br\">Max Fontes<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/marcus-fontes-96375055\/?originalSubdomain=br\">Marcus Fontes<\/a> at Fontes Tarso Ribeiro Law Firm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Counsel to Nokia and Ericsson reveal why the SEP holders chose Brazil and Colombia for their enforcement campaigns and the role those jurisdictions played in reaching global settlements.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[136,84,74,59,13,27,86,146,34,133,12,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alternative-dispute-resolution","category-amazon","category-brazil","category-ericsson","category-ericsson-v-lenovo","category-ip-license-agreements","category-lenovo","category-multimedia","category-nokia","category-nokia-v-amazon","category-patent-litigation","category-standard-essential-patents"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2409","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2409"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2409\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2413,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2409\/revisions\/2413"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}