A patent issue that concerns us all. Consider what a mobile phone and a connected vehicle have in common. Although they belong to very different industries, both use technologies that enable them to communicate over mobile networks and which, in many cases, are protected by patents.

This raises an important question: what happens when a company incorporates technology patented by a third party into its products without holding the necessary licence to use it?

This question lies at the heart of legal proceedings in Brazil between the Japanese company IP Bridge and Chinese automotive manufacturer Geely, concerning a patent related to the 4G LTE communications standard. The case provides a useful opportunity to understand what Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are, how they are licensed and why these issues are becoming increasingly relevant in industries extending far beyond telecommunications.

A mobile phone or a connected vehicle needs to use technologies that enable it to communicate with mobile networks, regardless of who manufactures it. This is possible because of technological standards, which comprise common technical specifications that allow equipment and devices made by different manufacturers to operate compatibly.

Some of the technologies required to comply with these standards are protected by patents. When a patented invention is indispensable to implementing a technological standard, it is known as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). Accordingly, a company wishing to manufacture a product that complies with a particular standard may need to use technologies protected by such patents and obtain the corresponding licences.

Consider, for example, a car manufacturer wishing to incorporate 4G connectivity into its vehicles. For those vehicles to communicate with mobile networks, they must comply with the technical specifications established for that standard. If one of the technologies indispensable to meeting those specifications is patent-protected, the manufacturer cannot simply replace it with another technology of its choosing, as doing so would mean that the product no longer complies with the standard.

To facilitate access to these technologies and prevent patent protection from becoming an unjustified obstacle to competition, many SEP holders undertake to offer licences on terms known as FRAND, meaning Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory. These conditions are intended to ensure that patent holders receive appropriate remuneration for their inventions while enabling companies seeking to implement the relevant technologies to obtain licences on reasonable terms without unjustified discrimination.

FRAND commitments are provided for, among other instruments, in the intellectual property policies of standards development organisations such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). These policies are not legislation, but commitments entered into under them may have legal consequences.[1]

Negotiations, however, are not always successful. The parties may disagree over royalty rates, the scope of the patents concerned, the terms of the licence, or even whether a patent is actually essential to the relevant standard. In some cases, these disagreements ultimately result in litigation.

In Brazil, IP Bridge, an entity engaged in the management and licensing of intellectual property assets, brought legal proceedings alleging that certain vehicles marketed by Geely used patented technology relating to the 4G LTE standard without authorisation. IP Bridge initially obtained an interim injunction restricting certain activities relating to the allegedly infringing products.

A Brazilian court subsequently provisionally suspended the injunction. Among other considerations, the decision took into account conflicting technical reports concerning the alleged infringement and potential risks to vehicle users’ safety. The court also clarified that the fact that a patent is essential to a standard does not, in itself, extinguish the rights of the patent holder. The suspension does not constitute a final ruling either on the validity of the patent or on whether infringement has occurred.[2]

From a business perspective, the case also provides an important lesson: incorporating technologies into new products should not be assessed solely in terms of their technical or commercial feasibility. It is advisable to identify, at an early stage and with the support of intellectual property specialists, the rights that may be involved and the conditions governing their use. In sectors where technologies developed by different industries increasingly converge, as is currently the case with connectivity in the automotive industry, this review is particularly important in order to anticipate risks and make informed decisions.

Where FRAND negotiations are unsuccessful, a patent holder may bring proceedings before the courts to enforce its exclusive rights and, in certain circumstances, seek interim measures preventing the marketing of allegedly infringing products. However, such measures are not granted automatically. Courts must consider the applicable legal requirements, the circumstances of the particular case and, where relevant, licensing commitments and the conduct of the parties during negotiations.

In Colombia, Andean Community Decision 486 of 2000 establishes the general framework for patent protection and provides mechanisms for enforcing patent holders’ rights, including interim measures. Although it does not establish a specific regime for FRAND licensing, Colombian courts have also heard disputes concerning Standard Essential Patents and related judicial measures.[3][4]

For many years, these disputes were concentrated primarily in the mobile phone industry. Today, the incorporation of connectivity into vehicles, for purposes including online navigation, telematics services, emergency calls and remote diagnostics, has brought vehicle manufacturers into a technology licensing ecosystem with which they were previously less familiar.

The recent proceedings brought by IP Bridge in Brazil reflect a broader international trend: the expansion of litigation concerning Standard Essential Patents into new jurisdictions and industrial sectors.

As Brazil consolidates its importance as both a technology and automotive market, its courts may increasingly be called upon to rule on disputes involving SEPs and FRAND licensing terms. The resulting decisions will contribute to the development of the legal principles applicable to these disputes in the region.

Irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the dispute between IP Bridge and Geely, the case illustrates the growing importance of SEPs in the digital economy. Achieving an appropriate balance between protecting patent holders’ exclusive rights and ensuring access to technologies that are essential to interoperability will remain one of the key challenges facing courts, regulatory authorities and industry stakeholders.

References

[1] ETSI, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy, Clause 6.1, in ETSI Directives (December 2025).
ETSI Intellectual Property Rights

[2] Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro, 13th Chamber of Private Law, Agravo de Instrumento No. 3004984-63.2026.8.19.0000, interim decision of 14 April 2026.
Decision of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro

[3] Andean Community, Decision 486 of 2000, Articles 52 (rights conferred on the patent holder), 238 (infringement proceedings) and 245–248 (interim measures).
WIPO Lex: Andean Community Decision 486

[4] Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá, Civil Chamber, Ericsson v Apple Colombia S.A.S., decision of 15 November 2022, Case Nos. 043-2022-00018-01 and 043-2022-00018-02.
WIPO Lex: Ericsson v Apple Colombia S.A.S.