‍

Context: Yesterday we reported on the withdrawal of IP Bridge’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) and German cases against Chinese automaker BYD (September 24, 2025 ip fray article). We also mentioned IP Bridge’s Brazilian preliminary injunction (PI) against BYD (July 12, 2025 ip fray article). On his Substack, Michael Ma reported that BYD has recently withdrawn Chinese revocation actions against certain patents held by Avanci licensors, making the plot thicken with respect to the scope of the license. Realistically, when there is litigation by pool licensors and multiple parallel cases settle near-simultaneously, a pool license is the only plausible explanation (as it was with respect to Tesla’s Avanci 4G license, which was confirmed years later as a result of UK litigation brought by Tesla over the Avanci 5G licensing terms).

What’s new: We’ve obtained further information on the Brazilian proceedings, and it appears that the denial of a motion for reconsideration of IP Bridge’s PI was a key factor in BYD’s decision to take a license.

Direct impact: The next big question is now whether BYD will ship cars with only 4G (but not 5G) functionality in certain jurisdictions, or license 5G standard-essential patents (SEPs), in which case an Avanci pool license would again be the most efficient option.

Wider ramifications: This was the first time for BYD to be embroiled in SEP litigation, and it’s possible that the decision to go to court was not based on a complete understanding of the international SEP enforcement landscape. Earlier this year, we mentioned that at least one unnamed Chinese automaker had taken an Avanci license (February 24, 2025 ip fray article). That one was obviously not BYD.

Here’s the Brazilian IP Bridge v. BYD timeline:

• 06/25: IP Bridge files PI motion
• 07/11: Court grants PI (based on urgency)
• 08/06: BYD brings motion for reconsideration
• 08/11: Rio de Janeiro court denies BYD’s motion, thereby upholds the injunction
• 08/28: IP Bridge and BYD jointly move for dismissal of the case
• 09/09: Court dismisses case based on settlement

A lot of things could have happened between the August 11 denial of BYD’s motion and the August 28 stipulation to dismiss the case, but it is a safe assumption that BYD’s management didn’t want to risk any disruption of the company’s global growth.

This is not the first case in which Brazil became the key enforcement jurisdiction that put a dispute to rest. We previously reported on Netflix settling with DivX owing exclusively to Brazilian patent enforcement (February 11, 2025 ip fray article).

Some more data points:

• Parties: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. BYD do Brasil Ltda.
• Case no. 0885826-79.2025.8.19.0001 (1st Business Court of Rio de Janeiro)
• Patent no. PI 0908287-5
• Relevant standard: 4G – 3GPP TS 36.212, 3GPP TS 36.213 and 3GPP TS 36.300

‍

Court and counsel

Trial judge: Judge Milena Angélica Drumond Morais Diz

Counsel for IP Bridge (as for all other SEP holders who have so far enforced their rights in Brazil): Licks Attorneys‘ Otto Licks and Carolina Mendes.

Counsel for BYD: BMA Advogados (Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão).