This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
JURISDICTION REPORT: BRAZIL

THE MISUSE OF SHAM LITIGATION INVESTIGATIONS

Otto Licks and Anderson Nascimento

Momsen, Leonardos & Cia

Brazil is known internationally as an intellectual property pirate. Te situation has its origins in the import substitution policies developed by UN-CEPAL decades ago, and implemented unanimously in the country by dictators such as Getulio Vargas and the military generals that followed him, as well as elected presidents. Te hopes for change during the mid-1990s, when the Stockholm revision of the Paris Convention, the WTO TRIPS Agreement and a series of new IP laws were implemented, have long vanished.

The treaties and statutes approved in the last decades were not overruled or vacated. Tey afford plausible deniability to the administration on compliance with international obligations, while denying IP owners effective enforcement. However, as the statutes are still on the books, IP owners have been seeking enforcement of the country’s IP laws before the Brazilian courts.

Now, the latest anti-intellectual property policy of the Brazilian government is to use the country’s (nominally independent) antitrust authorities to intimidate IP owners that approach the Brazilian judiciary for relief against the illegalities committed by the administration and local infringers.

In the last six months, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) and antitrust authorities (SDE and CADE) have signed a co-operation agreement in an unprecedented project to scrutinise possible sham litigation practices on the enforcement of IP rights. Te message is simple: there is no possibility to seek IP enforcement before the Brazilian courts without being threatened by an antitrust investigation.

In Brazil, sham litigation was invoked by the SDE in a case against Siemens VDO, in a non-IP matter. In this case, the SDE rendered an opinion quoting the sham litigation exception as adopted in the US. On March 16, CADE’s Commissioner Furlan voted to condemn Siemens due to misuse of its petition right. Te conclusion of Siemens’ case is expected within two months.

Although antitrust authorities are discussing to what extent sham litigation shall be applied in Brazil, they accept that the theory is supported by Article 17 of the Code of Civil Proceedings.

Concerning news emerged in the media in January about SDE inquiries into 37 research-based pharmaceutical companies. Te SDE requested information about the portfolio of products with patents granted in Brazil and information regarding every single litigation filed against any generic company in the past five years. In theory, the SDE will audit practices initiated by R&D companies in Brazil and punish those found to be violating the antitrust laws.

52 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2010

“ IN A LEGAL SYSTEM LACKING SOUND CASE LAW ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF IP RIGHTS, THESE PREMATURE CLAIMS BEFORE THE ANTITRUST AUTHORITIES HAVE A DETRIMENTAL INFLUENCE ON THE JUDGES’ WILL TO DECIDE CASES”

The co-operation agreement

Te agreement between INPI, the SDE and CADE results from recent investigations initiated before the SDE accusing R&D companies of abusing their rights of petition by invoking allegedly baseless IP rights to hinder competitors’ market entry.

According to the SDE, from 2000 to 2006, four sham litigation investigations were initiated by the agency. Eight further claims have been filed since 2007. Five of the ongoing investigations relate to claims filed by industries seeking to launch copies of pharmaceutical products protected by IP rights in Brazil.

The real story

Companies seeking to copy products still protected by IP rights in Brazil file their claims before the SDE in the early stages of any enforcement action filed by the IP owners.

In a legal system lacking sound case law on the enforcement of IP rights, these premature claims before the antitrust authorities have a detrimental influence on the judges’ will to decide the cases. Te claims also hinder the antitrust authorities, which must wait for developments on the alleged sham IP enforcement litigations before taking any decision. However, since the judges are uneasy about deciding complex and unfamiliar cases, aſter an antitrust claim is filed, the assigned judge avoids deciding anything related to it and waits for the antitrust authorities to make a substantial finding.

Tus, before a R&D company initiates litigation pursuing the enforcement of its IP rights in Brazil, it should assess the best strategy to avoid being accused of sham litigation, which could impair its chances of success in the judicial enforcement of its IP rights.

Otto Licks is a partner at Momsen, Leonardos & Cia. He can be contacted at: oblicks@leonardos.com.br

Anderson Nascimento is an associate at Momsen, Leonardos & Cia. He can be contacted at: arnascimento@leonardos.com.br

www.worldipreview.com Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80
Produced with Yudu - www.yudu.com