Nokia v. ACER

May 6th, 2025 ? H.264

NEC v. HMD & Multi

June 13th, 2025 ? AAC

Jvckenwood v. Transsion & Positivo

June 23th, 2025 ? H.265

Panasonic v. HMD & Multilaser

July 27th, 2025 ? AAC

Nokia v. MTV & Paramount

August 21st, 2025 ? H.264

Interdigital v. Shenzhen & Positivo*

September 24th, 2025

Nokia v. Warner Bros

November 1st, 2025 ? AVC/HEVC

Nokia v. ACBZ on May 23rd, 2025 (16 days after filing) ? H.264

Judge Caroline Rossy Brandao Fonseca (3rd Business Court of Rio de Janeiro State)

• “The likelihood of success on the merits is demonstrated by the plaintiff’s ownership of the patent (...), expert opinions from professionals in the field (...), and tests conducted on the infringing products, duly recorded in notarial minutes. (...) At least at this preliminary stage, patent infringement has been established. It is also noted that, prior to filing the present lawsuit, the plaintiff attempted to resolve the matter through administrative means for eight (8) years. The defendant does not deny these attempts at conciliation. (...) This confirms that judicial intervention was sought only as a last resort to put an end to the ongoing infringement. As for the risk of harm, it is clear that the legal framework itself establishes that the patent holder has the right to prevent third parties from using the patented invention (...).”

Dolby v. Shenzhen & Positivo on June 10th, 2025 (70 days after filing) ? AAC

Reporting Appellate Judge Leila Santos Lopes (18th Chamber of Private Law of Rio de Janeiro State Court), at appellate level

• “Based on a summary assessment, there is evidence supporting the appellant’s claim, particularly in light of the fact that the issue of the patent's essentiality does not deprive the holder of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, nor of the prerogative to prevent unauthorized third-party use. Compliance with FRAND terms will still be subject to further evidentiary proceedings."

Godo Kaisha v. BYD on July 6th, 2025 (16 days after filing) ? LTE

Judge Caroline Rossy Brandao Fonseca (3rd Business Court of Rio de Janeiro State)

• “The case records also demonstrate the use of the technology developed by the plaintiff, as evidenced by the technical reports submitted to the case file. It has been shown that the defendant is the only automaker in Brazil using said technology without providing proper compensation. (...) As for the risk of harm or the danger to the useful result of the proceedings, considering that the patent registration has a limited term (expiring in 2030) and that only about five years of exclusive use remain, it is clear that there is relatively little time left to economically exploit the patent. (...) The legal protection granted to patents aims, above all, to prevent unfair competition by discouraging the unauthorized use of third-party inventions and the resulting unjust enrichment at the expense of the rightful holder's intellectual effort."

Interdigital v. Disney on September 10th, 2025 (219 days after filing) ? AVC and HEVC

Judge Simone Gastesi Chevrand (7th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro), after the preliminary examination phase.

• “In light of the technical report filed in the case records, prepared by a court-appointed expert of recognized competence, the alleged patent infringement was confirmed. Indeed, after defining the scope of patents PI 0305519-1 and PI 0318825-5 and confirming that they are not standard-essential, the expert concluded that there was infringement by the defendant through the encoding and importation of video content in the H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC formats using the explicit weighted prediction process. The report is extensive, delves into technical matters, thoroughly addresses the parties’ questions, and answers those raised by the Court. There is no reason for it not to be fully adopted.”