IDS promotes 4th Interdisciplinary Seminar on Civil Procedure and Industrial Property

IDS promotes 4th Interdisciplinary Seminar on Civil Procedure and Industrial Property

Last Friday (6), the Dannemann Siemsen Institute (IDS) held the 4th edition of its Interdisciplinary Seminar on Civil Procedure and Industrial Property. The event aims to bring together big names from the national legal scene to debate procedural aspects related to the area of Industrial Property (IP), their practical implications and the positions adopted by our courts on the subject. This edition was scientifically coordinated by Judge Alexandre Câmara and academically coordinated by Marcelo Mazzola, and the lectures dealt with controversial issues involving interim relief, current issues and their practical repercussions, and the formation of precedents and the allocation of cases in the IP field.

Opening the event, Luiz Henrique do Amaral, partner at Dannemann Siemsen, Filipe Fonteles Cabral, executive director of IDS and Patricia Porto, academic coordinator of IDS, Luiz Henrique stressed the importance of Rio de Janeiro in the area of intersection between IP and civil procedure, also pointing out the role of the forum in forming a set of relevant and strategic jurisprudence in global cases. Filipe Fonteles and Patricia Porto then presented the work of IDS and spoke briefly about the event’s schedule of talks.

The first of the panels, moderated by Dannemann Siemsen partner Eduardo da Gama Câmara Junior, began with the topic “Is it possible to file a Special Appeal against decisions involving interim relief? Limits and possibilities in light of Precedent 735/STF”. Here, lawyer Rodrigo Gomes de Mendonça Pinheiro discussed STF Precedent 735 and its application by the STJ to special appeals dealing with interim relief. He also pointed out the reconciliation between the prohibition imposed by STJ Precedent 7 with the need to discuss requirements involving facts and evidence in a given case. He explained that, if a ruling is not exhaustive in terms of facts and evidence, it is possible to have this omission re-examined by the higher courts, for example, through the use of motions for clarification of facts. Rodrigo concluded by observing that the STJ is not immune to receiving new facts and can convert judgments into new steps.

In the second lecture of Panel 1, Antônio Aurélio Abi Ramia Duarte, judge at the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ), discussed provisional injunctions against communication platforms and social networks. Given the topic, the speaker questioned the flexibility of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet with regard to the responsibilities of companies providing digital platforms and, in this regard, mentioned the establishment of international protocols of good practice aimed at these companies, focusing on issues such as: respect for due process of law applied to the moderation and removal of content from these platforms, transparency, privacy, protection of IP rights, protection of personal data, guarantee of human rights and fundamental rights and respect for the rule of law, among others.

Thus, as the last speaker on the panel, Natacha Tostes de Oliveira, judge at TJRJ, spoke about the enforcement of fines for non-compliance with provisional injunctions, focusing on the STJ’s recent understanding, in Theme 706, which establishes the thesis that “the decision that imposes astrenites does not lapse, nor does it become res judicata”. In this sense, the speaker analyzed that a violation of IP, that must be inhibited before the final order is issued, needs means of enforcement, otherwise the right will not be duly recognized. She pointed out that, in sensitive lawsuits such as IP lawsuits, if a fine is ineffective as a coercive measure, other measures must be taken. Here, she also pointed out that atypical executive measures in enforcement actions, declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, may be appropriate in these cases.

In the second panel, moderated by Joaquim Eugenio Goulart, Danneman Simesen partner, the speaker Ricardo Alberto Pereira, judge at the TJRJ, began by talking about the intervention of the Amicus Curiae figure in the process. He explained who can be an amicus curiae, brought up issues related to the requirement of thematic pertinence, and also discussed the function of the amicus curiae (to legitimize and democratize judicial services).

TJRJ Judge Gustavo Quintanilha, began the panel’s second lecture on judicial cooperation in the IP sphere, dealing with cooperation both between courts and between institutions, as well as the topic of inserting concepts of judicial cooperation between countries. The speaker also referred to the concept of adequate jurisdiction, which changes the concept of the natural judge so that the judges themselves agree, taking into account the different technical domains of each one, to concentrate the judgment of a certain case or some of its procedural acts, based on a cooperation agreement.

In the last lecture of the panel, lawyer Maria Isabel C. de Castro Bingemer, partner at Dannemann Siemsen, spoke about the changes to the rules on forum selection and their impact on business contracts. The guest emphasized that the recent change in law 14.879/2024 has allowed the parties the freedom to understand which forum is more efficient, more appropriate and less costly. In addition, she dealt with the control of abusiveness and explained the issue of the “forum shopping”, also talking about the differences in case law in the application of the law to concrete cases.

In the seminar’s closing lecture, the moderator Marcelo Mazzola, partner at Dannemann Siemsen, emphasized the importance of the formation of judicial precedents and the allocation of cases within the IP field, the subject of the last panel. In the wake of this, Judge Alexandre Câmara took the floor to comment on the importance of the seminar, which promotes both interaction between the legal profession and the judiciary and the dissemination of contact between civil procedure and IP. Judge Câmara then pointed out that to talk about precedents in Brazil is to talk about the problem of the lack of legal certainty, generated by the lack of predictability and stability of judicial decisions in the country. He also explained that in the field of IP there have not yet been many developments in the sense of jurisprudential standardization, and that standardization is mainly aimed at combating jurisprudential dispersion, i.e. manifestly conflicting decisions within the same court or chamber.

The recording of the event will soon be available soon.

Note: For quick release, this English version is provided by automated translation without human review.