Licks Attorneys

Certification highlights the firm’s commitment to compliance culture and corporate ethic. From the Editors Tuesday, May 27, 2025 Updated at 11:10 A.M. BRT Licks Attorneys has just been awarded ISO 37301 certification, an international standard recognizing organizations with solid, effective compliance management systems aligned with global best practices in corporate governance. Celebrated as a milestone in the firm's trajectory, the achievement underscores initiatives implemented since 2018.

Licks Attorneys, a leading firm in intellectual property, regulation, and strategic litigation in Brazil, has announced the appointment of six new partners. The move highlights the firm's dedication to nurturing internal talent, pursuing sustainable growth, and expanding key areas to better serve its clients in Brazil and internationally.

Douglas Leite, Fernanda Cohen, and Flavio Buzanovsky Strengthen the firm’s expertise in technology and data privacy

Licks Attorneys will be at the 2024 International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) World Congress, which will take place between October 19 and 22 in Hangzhou, China.

Brazil represents a pivotal market for patent owners, thanks to its extensive consumer base and well-established pro-patent system, providing a reliable and efficient means of acquisition and adjudication. Still, many patent owners overlook the country when building and enforcing patent portfolios.

Licks Attorneys announced this Monday (November 21) the promotion of two attorneys at law to partners: Ciro Albuquerque and Rodolfo Barreto, both members of the firm since 2015. The news reflects Licks Attorneys' commitment to recognizing in-house talent and promoting the career development of its members.

Innovation in healthcare of all types is on the rise in Brazil. As this article will show, large investments have been made and are continuing to be made across all parts of the sector.  With continuing investment, it is more important than ever that all those involved give active consideration to intellectual property rights and in particular to the ownership of such rights.  Experience suggests that it is far better to deal with matters in advance to avoid the cost and uncertainty of future disputes.

In certain jurisdictions, the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit can raise an objection of invalidity to be jointly decided by the same court. In other systems, the validity of the patent must be challenged in a separate, independent proceeding, filed before a different court. This so-called “bifurcated system” is adopted, for instance, in Germany, where infringement is decided by the regional courts (Landgerichte), while validity falls under the jurisdiction of the federal patent court (Bundespatentgericht).

The protection of intellectual property is key to innovation. Investments in the research and development of new technologies are even more important during the uncertain times we are experiencing with the Covid-19 pandemic. Such protection generates benefits that go far beyond the IP owners, as it allows for technology transfers that enhance markets in all continents.   Research in Brazil is performed mainly in Universities, making the country the 13th largest producer of research publications globally, with an output that grows annually.[1] Innovation in Brazil can be fostered by placing greater emphasis on extracting value from the intellectual property system. The number of patent applications is a strong indicator of social and economic development[2], and there is plenty of room for improvement in Brazil. Fostering innovation and promoting intellectual property requires effective enforcement of the provisions set forth in the IP statute against infringement. The remedies provided by the legal systems against patent infringement in each country will vary, but there are certain paramount points common to any jurisdiction: The remedies available (i) must have the ability to deter and discourage further acts of infringement, (ii) must adequately compensate the IP owner, and (iii) must safeguard the utility of the legal proceeding in itself, ensuring that infringement does not “pay off”. The undisputed main remedy provided by IP law in Brazil is the preliminary injunction, chosen by the Brazilian Congress.[3] The different economic, social, and political realities in each country make it very difficult, if not impossible, to compare remedies available across different jurisdictions. No matter the remedy chosen by the law of each country, the predictability and legal certainty of effective enforcement of IP protection will have a crucial impact on innovation – as well as on the ability of the IP system to promote technical and social development. The preliminary injunction set forth by the BR IP statute (Article 209, first paragraph) is part of a legal framework that provides preliminary relief as part of any complaint, foreseen in Article 300 of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code, which applies to any area of law. These statutory provisions require the grant of a preliminary injunction upon prima facie evidence of infringement The law also requires periculum in mora (risk of irreparable harm), not only for the IP owner, but also for the effectiveness and utility of the adjudication. The abundant number of appeals available (interim and final) creates the possibility of a scenario where, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, the infringer could be encouraged to promote severe delays in court proceedings. The remedies provided by the BR IP statute have been consistently granted by courts.[4] Brazil is a country of civil law and it is worth remembering that the balance of hardships and the public interest in the statute must not be disregarded. The remedies provided by the law of each country must be enforced without hesitation, in order to allow the IP system to develop its paramount role of promoting social and technological development. Written by Carlos Aboim (Partner), Renata Carvalho (Attorney), Rodolfo Barreto (Attorney) and Pedro Gomes [1]https://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/diversos/17012018-CAPES-InCitesReport-Final.pdf [2]https://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/country_profile/profile.jsp?code=BR [3]Article 209, § 1º. The judge may, in the formal record of the same action, so as to avoid irreparable damages or damages that would be difficult to recover, grant an injunctive order to suspend the violation or act that has such in view, before summonsing the defendant, against, if judged necessary, monetary caution or a fiduciary guarantee. [4]STJ. REsp nº 1.315.479/SP.