Thursday, October 15, 2026

Juan Contreras on Latin American SEP Litigation

Juan Camilo Contreras has published an article titled The Role of Latin America as a Jurisdiction for Global SEP Litigation:  A Comparison with Global Trends, 75 GRUR Int. 307 (2026).  Here is the abstract:

This article explores the emerging role of Latin America as a forum for global litigation over standard-essential patents (SEPs), particularly in the context of preliminary injunctions and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing commitments. Traditionally peripheral in international patent enforcement, jurisdictions such as Brazil and Colombia have gained strategic importance as SEP holders increasingly seek product injunctions in these venues to exert leverage in global disputes. The article provides a comparative assessment of how courts in the two countries have handled SEP related claims, highlighting a discernible shift from automatic injunctions toward a more balanced, FRAND sensitive adjudication framework. The study argues that while Latin America continues to serve as a ‘pressure jurisdiction’ in SEP disputes, its courts and administrative bodies are aligning with global trends that emphasize proportionality, public interest, and regulatory scrutiny concerning product injunctions. This transformation offers important lessons for international observers and policymakers seeking to understand how emerging jurisdictions adapt global doctrines to local legal and institutional contexts.

This is a very informative article.  Even though I try to keep up with developments in the SEP/FRAND space, I was not previously familiar with some of the matters Professor Contreras discusses, including a decision by the Andean Community of Nations that found fault with the Bogota Court of Appeals' decision that applied Colombian national law that requires courts to consider necessity, effectiveness, and proportionality before granting preliminary injunctions (though Professor Contreras also writes the binding nature of the decision is debatable, and he reaches the overall conclusion that the trend in Brazil and Colombia is toward greater judicial restraint in granting preliminary injunctions in FRAND cases).  

I should also note that Professor Contreras published a chapter in Jorge Contreras' (no relation, as I understand it) recent edited volume FRAND Cases in Context (previously noted in this blog here), titled Ericsson v. Apple:  South America Enters the Injunction Race.  He also has written a chapter that will be included in the forthcoming edited volume that Tim Holbrook and I are co-editing, the Oxford Research Handbook on Extraterritoriality and Intellectual Property Law.

No comments:

Post a Comment