Intellectual Property 2026

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

Contributing Editor Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Global Practice Guides

Intellectual Property Contributing Editor Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

2026

Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan

Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com

Contents

INTRODUCTION Contributed by Hogan Lovells Cadwalader p.5 ASIA PACIFIC Trends and Developments p.8 Contributed by Zhong Lun Law Firm BRAZIL Law and Practice p.14 Contributed by Leão Intellectual Property CHINA Law and Practice p.28 Contributed by CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office

MALAYSIA Law and Practice p.179

Contributed by Gan Partnership Trends and Developments p.195 Contributed by Gan Partnership

MALTA Law and Practice p.202 Contributed by Fenech & Fenech Advocates MEXICO Law and Practice p.213 Contributed by Basham, Ringe y Correa S.C. Trends and Developments p.230 Contributed by Specific IP SERBIA Law and Practice p.235 Contributed by T-S Legal Trends and Developments p.256 Contributed by T-S Legal SLOVENIA Law and Practice p.261 Contributed by Šelih & partnerji SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.282 Contributed by Lee & Ko Trends and Developments p.300 Contributed by Lee & Ko SPAIN Law and Practice p.307 Contributed by Sol Muntañola Abogados Trends and Developments p.323 Contributed by Sol Muntañola Abogados

Trends and Developments p.50 Contributed by LeanWill Law Firm COSTA RICA Law and Practice p.58 Contributed by IDEAS IP Trends and Developments p.74 Contributed by IDEAS IP

ECUADOR Law and Practice p.81 Contributed by VIVANCO & VIVANCO Trends and Developments p.98 Contributed by Estudio Spingarn & Marks S.A.

GERMANY Trends and Developments p.103 Contributed by Thum & Partner | Thum, Mötsch, Weickert Patentanw ä lte PartG mbB INDIA Law and Practice p.112 Contributed by Sim and San, Attorneys at Law Trends and Developments p.128 Contributed by Sim and San, Attorneys at Law

SWEDEN Law and Practice p.330 Contributed by Magnusson Law

ITALY Law and Practice p.136 Contributed by Legance

TÜRKIYE Law and Practice p.347 Contributed by KM Legal

JAPAN Law and Practice p.154 Contributed by TMI Associates Trends and Developments p.173 Contributed by Ohno & Partners

3 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

UKRAINE Law and Practice p.365

Contributed by AMBASSADORS Trends and Developments p.387 Contributed by AMBASSADORS USA – ARIZONA Trends and Developments p.393 Contributed by PLATZ JURIS, PLLC USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments p.399 Contributed by Armond Wilson LLP USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments p.405 Contributed by Thomas Horstemeyer, LLP USA – NEW YORK Trends and Developments p.409 Contributed by Pierson Ferdinand LLP

VENEZUELA Law and Practice p.413

Contributed by Bentata Abogados Trends and Developments p.431 Contributed by Bentata Abogados

4 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION

Contributed by: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader offers clients a full range of legal services. In a fast-changing and interconnect- ed world, the firm provides fresh thinking combined with proven experience. Located in the world’s key hubs, Hogan Lovells advises on a range of intellectu- al property matters as well as litigation, M&A, corpo- rate and capital markets transactions. Its experience in cross-border and emerging economies gives the firm the necessary market perspective to be a global partner to its clients. With more than 45 offices world- wide, the firm’s practice groups co-operate closely with each other, providing clients the full resources of a global firm from a single, local point of contact.

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader Atlantic House Holborn Viaduct London EC1A 2FG UK Web: www.hoganlovells.com

5 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Introduction: Intellectual Property at a Turning Point Intellectual property law is undergoing a period of profound transformation. Across the world’s major jurisdictions, courts and legislatures are confront- ing a set of converging pressures: the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, the borderless nature of digital commerce, and the surging economic value of intan- gible assets. From China’s evolving case law on AI- generated content to Japan’s landmark patent dam- ages award, from South Korea’s punitive copyright reforms to Europe’s cross-border enforcement frame- work, the same fundamental questions are emerging everywhere: who owns creative output, where does infringement occur, and how should rights be valued? This guide maps the key developments shaping the new global IP landscape. AI and the Reinvention of Intellectual Property Every jurisdiction covered in this guide is grappling with AI in some form, although their approaches differ significantly. China has gone furthest in developing a body of case law around AI-generated content. Early decisions sug- gested that sophisticated prompts might be enough to support claims of originality. More recent judg- ments have taken a stricter approach. Courts now require convincing evidence that a human exercised meaningful creative control over the output. Detailed generation records, evidence of iterative input, and proof of substantive human contribution have become increasingly important. The Chinese courts have also been active in defining the liability of generative AI platforms. Landmark decisions have distinguished between platforms that directly influence or control infringing outputs and those that merely fail to pre- vent them. These distinctions are beginning to shape expectations across the wider technology sector. Elsewhere, the focus is different. Germany is wrestling with the practical implications of AI training and text and data mining. Courts and policymakers are exam- ining how copyright holders can effectively reserve their rights and whether such reservations must be machine-readable in order to have legal effect.

South Korea has embraced AI both as a regulatory challenge and as a regulatory tool. AI-powered sys- tems now assist with patent analysis and design searches, helping improve enforcement and exami- nation processes. At the same time, authorities have tightened standards for AI-related inventions, reflect- ing concerns about maintaining patent quality in a rapidly developing field. The End of Traditional Borders Another striking theme is the growing strain on one of the oldest principles in IP law: territoriality. Historically, legal rights were closely tied to geog- raphy. A patent granted in one country generally stopped at that country’s borders. Digital commerce has complicated that assumption. Online platforms, cloud infrastructure and international marketplaces make it increasingly difficult to determine where an allegedly infringing act actually occurs. Japan’s Supreme Court, in Dwango v FC2 , held that acts performed on overseas servers can constitute patent infringement if their effects manifest within Japan and the services are directed at the Japanese market – assessing the infringing act as a whole rather than mapping the location of each component. South Korea has reached similar conclusions. In one notable case, a Chinese company marketed products through a foreign platform but used Korean-language descriptions, Korean-won pricing and Korean delivery options. The court held that these activities amounted to an offer directed at the Korean market, despite the infrastructure being located elsewhere. China has also expanded its reach through legislative reform. Amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law now expressly address conduct occurring out- side China when it disrupts domestic market order. Meanwhile, Europe is pursuing a different but equal- ly significant solution. The Unified Patent Court is extending enforcement reach across multiple partici- pating states through a single proceeding. Although the legal reasoning differs, the direction is unmistakable: the assumption that server location

6 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

defines legal exposure is not holding. Courts and legislatures are increasingly focusing on commercial impact rather than technical geography. The Rising Value of IP Disputes If there is one area where the importance of IP can be measured most clearly, it is damages. For many years, patent litigation in Japan involved comparatively modest sums. That perception changed dramatically in 2025 when the Intellectual Property High Court awarded approximately JPY21.8 billion in a pharmaceutical dispute. The decision shattered a ceiling that had stood for more than two decades and immediately attracted international attention. The case highlighted broader strengths of the Japa- nese system. Permanent injunctions remain relatively accessible, litigation costs are comparatively moder- ate, and proceedings are often faster than in many competing jurisdictions. Together, these factors have strengthened Japan’s position as an increasingly attractive venue for major patent disputes. China’s experience tells a similar story. Punitive damages have become a more prominent feature of enforcement, with courts willing to impose substan- tial awards in cases involving deliberate infringement. This trend signals a broader willingness to treat IP rights as economically significant assets deserving meaningful protection. South Korea has moved in the same direction. New rules permit punitive damages of up to five times the amount of loss for intentional copyright infringement, while criminal penalties have also been strengthened. Germany traditionally places greater emphasis on injunctions than damages, but the Unified Patent Court has amplified the power of that approach. The possibility of obtaining relief across multiple countries through a single action can create enormous com- mercial pressure, particularly in technology-driven industries. Standard Essential Patents Few areas of IP law illustrate global divergence more clearly than standard essential patents (SEPs).

SEPs are patents that protect technologies required to comply with technical standards, such as those used in telecommunications. Because entire industries depend on access to these technologies, disputes often centre on whether patent owners are offering licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Japan offers a particularly interesting example of changing judicial attitudes. For more than a decade, successful SEP injunction claims were almost non- existent. That changed with the Tokyo District Court’s decision in Pantech v Google . What made the case remarkable was not simply the outcome but the rea- soning behind it. The court placed significant weight on the defendant’s refusal to engage with judicial settlement efforts. In other words, conduct during the dispute mattered as much as the underlying licensing negotiations them- selves. This emphasis has since been reinforced through Japan’s SEP litigation and mediation guidelines intro- duced in 2026. The new framework seeks to encour- age global settlements under court supervision, with consequences for parties that refuse to participate constructively. For multinational businesses, this creates a complex landscape. Different jurisdictions may apply distinct interpretations of FRAND obligations, creating oppor- tunities for parallel litigation and strategic forum selec- tion. Success increasingly depends on co-ordinating legal strategy across multiple countries rather than treating disputes as isolated national matters. Conclusion Despite their differences, the jurisdictions in this guide are responding to many of the same challenges: artifi- cial intelligence, digital commerce, the growing value of intangible assets, and increasing international inte- gration. Some countries have pursued rapid legislative reform, while others have relied on judicial develop- ments or regional frameworks. Taken together, they reveal an IP landscape that is becoming more inter- connected, more valuable, and increasingly central to economic growth and innovation.

7 CHAMBERS.COM

ASIA PACIFIC Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dongxiao Ma, Yuanchao Ma, Dan He and Peng Zhang Zhong Lun Law Firm Zhong Lun Law Firm was founded in 1993 and was one of the first partnership law firms authorised to operate in the PRC. After decades of growth, to- day Zhong Lun has established itself as one of the largest full-service law firms in China, housing more than 2,200 professionals, including over 400 equity partners, in offices across Beijing, Shanghai, Shenz- hen, Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Almaty, spanning all five continents. Zhong Lun IP team boasts practitioners with both a

Asia Pacific

GUAM

technical background and industrial experience, in- cluding former judges and CNIPA patent examiners. Many of the cases the firm has handled over these years were selected for inclusion in the “Top 10 IP Cases in Chinese Courts” and “50 Typical Repre- sentative Cases” annual lists. Zhong Lun’s IP team has provided services for numerous domestic and in- ternational companies of all sizes, with major clients including Huawei, JD, Tencent, Mengniu and others.

Authors

Dongxiao Ma graduated from Peking University Law School and has practiced in the IP field for over 30 years. He formerly headed the legal and IP departments at Haier Group. He has handled over 500 IP cases,

Yuanchao Ma is a partner of Zhong Lun Law Firm and has devoted more than 20 years to dispute resolution regarding intellectual property, and anti-unfair competition, for domestic and foreign enterprises across

including more than 100 before the SPC, covering trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and unfair competition. MA serves as an expert in the National IP Strategy Expert Database, supervisor of the Beijing Guanghua Design Development Foundation, and external supervisor for master’s students at Peking University Law School and the IP College of East China University of Political Science and Law.

sectors including internet, software, information technology, cultural entertainment and gaming. Many major litigation cases represented by Mr Ma have been selected as typical cases in China. He has been listed as an IP litigation lawyer in the Chambers and Partners Asia-Pacific Guide for 11 years. He serves as an arbitrator at the Shanghai Arbitration Commission and Shanghai International Arbitration Center, a mediator at WIPO, and a member of AIPLA and AIPPI China.

8 CHAMBERS.COM

ASIA PACIFIC Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dongxiao Ma, Yuanchao Ma, Dan He and Peng Zhang, Zhong Lun Law Firm

Dan He has represented numerous litigation and arbitration cases across criminal, civil and administrative fields, with particular astuteness in technical IP disputes (trade secrets and patent litigation). He has handled

Peng Zhang specialises in patent disputes, antitrust/competition law and technical transactions. Recognised by Chambers as an IP and TMT lawyer from 2023 to 2026, he has handled over 100 cases,

complex cases involving Fortune 500 companies and won multiple cross-border trade secrets cases with civil-criminal elements. Many of his cases have been selected as guiding cases by courts and IP bureaus. Dan also provides comprehensive legal services to universities, state-owned enterprises, listed companies and government agencies, and has published influential papers and books on IP compliance, high-value patents, patent infringement litigation, trade secret protection, etc.

several of which were selected among the “Top 100 Representative Cases” of the SPC IP Tribunal (5th anniversary) and the “Top Ten Trade Secret Cases” and “Top Ten Antitrust and Anti-Unfair Competition Cases” of the Beijing IP Court. He also participated in an exchange programme at Kirkland & Ellis’s San Francisco office, gaining cross-border experience in IP litigation and international IP transactions.

Zhong Lun Law Firm 22-24/F and 27-31/F, South Tower of CP Center 20 Jin He East Avenue Chaoyang District Beijing China Tel: +86 10 5957 2288 Fax: +86 10 6568 1022 /+86 10 6568 1838 Email: beijing@zhonglun.com Web: www.zhonglun.com

9 CHAMBERS.COM

ASIA PACIFIC Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dongxiao Ma, Yuanchao Ma, Dan He and Peng Zhang, Zhong Lun Law Firm

Overview The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology is exerting a profound and growing influ- ence on IP legal systems. The development of AI tech- nologies across Asia-Pacific countries is characterised by vertical deepening and scenario integration, which has broadened the application of AI in conjunction with various industries. Several emerging trends are apparent. In the area of IP grant procedures, countries are expanding the scope of protectable subject matter related to AI and shortening examination and grant cycles through legislative amendments or revisions to examination standards. In the area of IP exploita- tion, policies are being relaxed to encourage industrial innovation related to AI technology applications. In the area of IP enforcement, a balanced approach empha- sising both development and security is being adopt- ed, with stronger protection measures for new tech- nologies related to AI. As the most significant major power in the Asia-Pacific region, China has recently seen notable changes in IP protection in response to technological developments in the AI era. In this chapter, experienced lawyers from the IP department of Zhong Lun Law Firm draw on their frontline judi- cial practice experience to comprehensively review the challenges and developmental trends in patent, copyright, trade mark and trade secret protection in China in recent years. Trade Secrets New developments in trade secret protection In terms of civil protection of trade secrets, since China implemented the leapfrog appeal system in 2019, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court has made the adjudication of technical secret cases a priority. Over the past seven years, the Court has issued numerous landmark judgments in technical secret cases. These include lowering the evidentiary standard for rights-holders to establish the existence of a trade secret, extensively applying burden-of-proof shifting rules to presume infringement, imposing puni- tive damages for infringement of technical secrets and clarifying specific measures for ceasing infringement of technical secrets. Several judgments have awarded damages exceeding USD15 million, with the highest reaching USD90 million, demonstrating a pro-rights holder stance. Based on available data, the success rate for plaintiffs in technical secret cases before the

Supreme People’s Court’s IP Court is approximately 40%, significantly higher than the success rate in local courts. In terms of criminal protection of trade secrets, in 2025, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued the Judicial Interpreta- tion on Handling Criminal IP Infringement Cases to specifically regulate the increasing number of techni- cal secret criminal cases, and to guide public secu- rity agencies nationwide in investigating trade secret crime cases. The 2025 investigation by Shanghai police into a company’s infringement of Huawei’s radio frequency chip technical secrets stands out as the most influential recent trade secret criminal case. After two years of investigation and prosecution, 14 individuals were ultimately convicted. As a crucial part of China’s unique administrative protection system, the Provisions on Trade Secret Protection (the “Provisions”) were promulgated in the first half of 2026, which signals that market regulatory authorities will become more involved in combating trade secret infringement. The Provisions document is considered the most comprehensive legal docu- ment to date in the field of trade secret protection, containing numerous forward-looking provisions that reflect robust protection for trade secret holders. Notably, they expand the scope of protectable tech- nical secrets to include algorithms, data, computer programmes and code, as well as partial results and negative experimental data, aligning with the protec- tion needs of enterprises in the digital economy era. Furthermore, similar to regulations in countries like Japan and South Korea, the Provisions provide for protective measures against trade secret infringement acts committed outside China, establishing a form of long-arm jurisdiction over such acts. Overall, China has been continuously strengthening its protection of trade secrets, driven by its innovation- driven development policy in science and technology. This benefits innovative technology industries and provides strong protection for investments in new technologies. It has also been observed that the pro- fessional and complex nature of trade secret litigation presents significant challenges for parties in individual cases. Lawyers deeply versed in China’s civil, criminal

10 CHAMBERS.COM

ASIA PACIFIC Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dongxiao Ma, Yuanchao Ma, Dan He and Peng Zhang, Zhong Lun Law Firm

and administrative trade secret protection rules, pos- sessing comprehensive litigation and practical experi- ence, are best placed to take the pulse of protection in this era of systemic change. Patents Frontline game: navigating the new landscape of collaborative patent protection in the Asia-Pacific region As an important engine of global economic growth, the Asia-Pacific region has emerged as a pivotal hub for patent innovation and rule restructuring, with patent systems undergoing a profound transformation from independent operation within single jurisdictions to regional co-ordination and rule integration. This shift is reflected not only in the differentiated examination standards iterated by various countries to accommo- date frontier technologies such as AI and biomedicine, but also in the nuanced balancing of rights protection boundaries, cross-border enforcement mechanisms and the balance of public interests. From the perspective of patent grant and patent invali- dation requests, divergent regional rules have become a primary challenge for corporate IP strategies. While all major Asia Pacific economies operate within the framework of international agreements, including the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Regional Comprehensive Economic Part- nership (RCEP) and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), their patent examination standards vary significantly due to differing stages of development and industrial priorities. In reviewing patents involving algorithms and big data, China emphasises that algorithms must have specific technical connections with the internal structure of computers, Singapore recognises the patentability of pure software when it achieves specific technical effects and Australia maintains a strict technical con- tribution test. India has introduced specialised guide- lines governing the patent examination framework for AI, blockchain and related technologies. Against this backdrop of regulatory divergence, enterprises must transcend single-jurisdiction thinking and ensure structured design in alignment with their industrial lay-

out to achieve the dual aims of rights protection and commercial value. From the perspective of patent enforcement and dis- pute resolution, strategic competition has intensified markedly. In recent years, standard essential patent (SEP) disputes have become the core focus. China adheres to the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) principle throughout SEP trials, Japan has issued SEP litigation guidelines proposing a four-step negotiation framework and Southeast Asian countries have established specialised IP courts, either refer- encing the EU framework or being influenced by US precedents, forming differentiated judicial approach- es. In such a litigation landscape, the co-ordination of remedy strategies in multi-jurisdictional parallel pro- ceedings relies on the legal team’s comprehensive expertise in substantive and procedural laws across multiple jurisdictions, as well as their ability to co- ordinate and strategise across different legal systems. The globalisation of R&D has driven patent commer- cialisation, prompting countries to iterate and form differentiated compliance requirements for patent transactions. China and Korea have incorporated pat- ents for sensitive technologies into export controls, Singapore leverages RCEP to simplify patent review for member states while strengthening the filing of sensitive technologies, and Australia has enhanced cross-oversight between patent regulation and anti- trust enforcement. In this regulatory environment, enterprises should elevate patent transactions to a corporate strategic level and systematically design licensing terms and rights allocation structures tai- lored to individual jurisdictions. Overall, patent protection essentially embodies the co- ordination and competition associated with the com- mercialisation of innovative value. When expanding into the Asia-Pacific market, enterprises must adopt a full-chain mindset to integrate patent grant, enforce- ment and commercialisation. By relying on profes- sional cross-jurisdictional legal support, enterprises can maximise patent value amid rule-based games, adapt to the new landscape of collaborative protec- tion and seize the initiative in innovative competition.

11 CHAMBERS.COM

ASIA PACIFIC Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dongxiao Ma, Yuanchao Ma, Dan He and Peng Zhang, Zhong Lun Law Firm

Copyright Technological innovation is reshaping the traditional copyright protection system In recent years, a new copyright protection ecosys- tem has emerged in the Asia-Pacific region, character- ised by comprehensive application of AI technology, gradual improvement of legislative rules, strengthened platform responsibilities and deepened regional co- ordination. AI is no longer merely a source of copyright risks, but has become a core infrastructure for rights confirmation, monitoring and governance, facilitat- ing the shift in copyright protection from a passive, reactive model to an intelligent, predictive and fully integrated closed-loop system. In terms of legislation and ownership, major Asia- Pacific countries have gradually reached a consen- sus that human-led creation is the core premise of copyright protection, and that AI-generated content may obtain limited protection provided that it meets the requirements of being human-led and original, although it must be labelled with its source. Recently, Vietnam and South Korea have revised their IP/copy- right laws, while China and Indonesia have improved supporting rules. In terms of right confirmation and evidence collec- tion, blockchain-based evidence preservation and AI- powered originality detection technologies have been widely adopted. China is attempting to use AI tools to quickly compare the similarity of works, trace dis- semination paths and preserve electronic evidence, effectively solving the key challenges of traditional rights protection – ie, difficulty in evidence collection, difficulty in determination and prolonged proceedings. In terms of monitoring and law enforcement, main- stream digital platforms have generally deployed AI- powered copyright monitoring systems. Short video, live streaming, e-commerce and AI generation plat- forms have been subject to a higher duty of care. The traditional notice-and-takedown mechanism has been upgraded to a proactive prevention and control mech- anism of prediction-filtering-action, greatly shortening the chain of dissemination of infringing content. At the regional co-ordination level, copyright data inter- connection, law enforcement assistance and mutual

recognition of judgments under the RCEP framework are steadily advancing, effectively improving the effi- ciency of cross-border infringement governance. In general, the Asia-Pacific copyright ecosystem in 2026 is characterised by technological intelligence, clear rules, proactive governance and co-ordinated protection. AI has not only reshaped content creation, but also reconstructed the copyright protection sys- tem, helping to achieve a dynamic balance between innovation incentives and rights protection. However, this change also brings new challenges to copyright protection, requiring lawyers to navigate multiple dimensions, including law versus technology, tradi- tion versus innovation and rights protection versus industrial development to keep pace with the rapid evolution of the copyright industry in the digital age. Trade Marks Amendment and outlook for China’s Trademark Law At the end of December 2025, the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress deliberated on the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised Draft) and solicited public consultation. This marks the fifth amendment to China’s Trademark Law since its promulgation in 1982. Compared to previous amendments, this one introduces significant system- atic changes. Beyond continuing to combat bad-faith trade mark squatting through a full-chain prevention approach and strengthening registrants’ obligations of use by shifting from a registration-oriented to a use- oriented basis, it also reflects contemporary charac- teristics such as focusing on digital economy gov- ernance and empowering the trade mark protection system through digitisation and intelligentisation. AI deeply restructures the entire trade mark protection chain in the Asia-Pacific region In 2026, AI has profoundly restructured the entire chain of trade mark protection in the Asia-Pacific region, forming a new ecosystem featuring intelligent examination, global real-time monitoring and regional co-ordination. At the stage of registration and examination, AI has become a standard infrastructure. With the full imple- mentation of the 13th Edition of the Nice Classifica-

12 CHAMBERS.COM

ASIA PACIFIC Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dongxiao Ma, Yuanchao Ma, Dan He and Peng Zhang, Zhong Lun Law Firm

tion, China, Japan, South Korea and certain other major Southeast Asian countries have gradually pro- moted and applied AI-powered examination systems, realising the integration of automatic classification, similarity search, risk prediction and evidence verifica- tion. Among them, the trade mark examination cycle in a few countries, such as China, has been greatly shortened to three to six months, while the examina- tion efficiency in most countries has also been signifi- cantly improved. At the stage of use and supervision, AI tools are being used to achieve global real-time monitoring. To address issues such as hidden trade mark infringe- ment through e-commerce keywords, trade mark dilution on social platforms, and the counterfeiting of packaging and decoration, AI can scan the entire net- work 24/7, conduct cross-border comparisons, trace the infringement chains and automatically preserve electronic evidence.

In terms of regional co-ordination, the interconnec- tion of trade mark data and law enforcement assis- tance under the RCEP framework has become more seamless. AI facilitates the sharing of cross-border infringement information and reduces cross-border compliance costs for enterprises. Overall, Asia-Pacific trade mark protection in 2026 is characterised by intelligent examination, global moni- toring, proactive governance and regional integration. AI makes trade mark protection more accurate, effi- cient and fair, helping to upgrade brand innovation and market order simultaneously.

13 CHAMBERS.COM

BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by:

Colombia

Ecuador

Brazil

Peru

Brasilia

Bolivia

Rio de Janeiro São Paulo

Paraguay

Chile

Argentina

Fabiano de Bem da Rocha, Gustavo Bahuschewskyj Correa, Kamille Trindade Machado and Milton Lucídio Leão Barcellos Leão Intellectual Property

Contents 1. Patents p.17 1.1 Legal Framework and Patentable Subject Matter p.17 1.2 Patent Granting Procedure p.17 1.3 Scope, Term and Maintenance of Patent Rights p.17 1.4 Ownership, Assignment and Licensing p.18 1.5 Patent Infringement and Defences p.18 1.6 Patent Enforcement and Remedies p.18 2. Trade Marks p.18 2.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Signs p.18 2.2 Requirements for Trade Mark Protection p.19 2.3 Trade Mark Registration System p.19 2.4 Term, Use and Maintenance p.19 2.5 Trade Mark Rights and Limitations p.19 2.6 Trade Mark Enforcement and Remedies p.19 3. Copyright p.20 3.1 Legal Framework and Copyrightable Works p.20 3.2 Requirements for Copyright Protection p.20 3.3 Authorship and Ownership p.20 3.4 Scope of Rights and Moral Rights p.20 3.5 Term of Protection and Termination p.20 3.6 Limitations, Exceptions and Defences p.20 3.7 Copyright Enforcement and Remedies p.20 3.8 Infringement Tests and Substantiality p.20 3.9 Collective Management and Licensing p.20 4. Industrial Designs and Trade Dress p.21 4.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Subject Matter p.21 4.2 Requirements for Protection p.21 4.3 Registration and Term p.21 4.4 Enforcement and Remedies p.21 4.5 Functionality and Technical Features p.21 5. Trade Secrets p.21 5.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Information p.21 5.2 Reasonable Measures and Confidentiality p.22

6. Know-How p.23 6.1 Definition and Legal Basis of Know-How p.23 6.2 Protectability Requirements and Scope p.23 6.3 Ownership, Creation and Employee Know-How p.23 6.4 Protection Through Contract and Confidentiality p.23 6.5 Licensing and Assignment p.24 6.6 Reverse Engineering p.24

7. Data, AI and Emerging IP Issues p.24 7.1 Data Rights and Database Protection p.24

7.2 AI-Generated Works and Inventorship/Authorship p.24 7.3 Training Data, Model Development and Infringement Risk p.25 7.4 Enforcement Against AI-Enabled Infringement p.25 8. Intersections and Overlaps p.25 8.1 Choice of Protection and Strategic Considerations p.25 8.2 Cumulative and Overlapping Protection p.26 8.3 Patents and Trade Secrets p.26 8.4 Trade Marks, Trade Dress and Industrial Designs p.26 8.5 Copyright and Trade Marks p.26 8.6 Enforcement and Remedies Across Multiple IP Rights p.26 8.7 International and Cross-Border Considerations p.27

5.3 Misappropriation of Trade Secrets p.22 5.4 Duration and Loss of Protection p.22 5.5 Enforcement and Remedies p.22

14 CHAMBERS.COM

BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Fabiano de Bem da Rocha, Gustavo Bahuschewskyj Correa, Kamille Trindade Machado and Milton Lucídio Leão Barcellos, Leão Intellectual Property

Leão Intellectual Property is a Brazil-based IP firm founded in 1957, with more than 40 professionals fully dedicated to IP, innovation and related regulato- ry and litigation matters. The multidisciplinary team, including attorneys, engineers, biologists and regis- tered patent and trade mark attorneys, supports cli- ents from innovation and IP strategy to prosecution and enforcement. Headquartered in Porto Alegre, with branches in Santa Catarina and São Paulo, the firm advises Brazilian and international clients on pat- ents, trade marks, copyright, designs, trade dress, trade secrets, unfair competition and technology contracts, co-ordinating with counsel in key foreign

jurisdictions for cross-border filing and disputes. The firm has strong experience in prosecution before the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI), conten- tious matters (eg, administrative nullity and invalid- ity actions), anti-counterfeiting, and IP disputes be- fore Brazilian state and federal courts. Recent work includes freedom-to-operate analyses, managing complex patent, trade mark and design portfolios, advising on licensing and assignments, and assisting clients in innovation-driven sectors such as software, AI, automation, manufacturing, consumer goods, pharma and life sciences. Gustavo Bahuschewskyj Correa is a senior partner at Leão Intellectual Property, a patent and trade mark attorney and an attorney at law. He holds a specialisation in consumer law (UFRGS) and a Master’s in IP (University of Lisbon). His practice covers trade mark and design prosecution and portfolio management, and contentious trade mark matters including oppositions, cancellations and administrative invalidity actions before the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI). He also advises on licensing, assignments and technology-related agreements, and supports enforcement strategies in co-ordination with litigation counsel. Gustavo assists Brazilian and international clients in consumer goods, technology and manufacturing. He is a member of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB), ABAPI, ABPI and AIPPI.

Authors

Fabiano de Bem da Rocha is an attorney at law and senior partner at Leão Intellectual Property focusing on IP litigation and civil proceedings. He is an honorary board member and former President (2010–11, 2012–13)

of the Brazilian Association of Industrial Property Agents (ABAPI) and served as Brazil’s alternate delegate to the Inter-American Association of Intellectual Property (ASIPI; 2019–21). He has taught civil procedure in ABAPI industrial property courses and lectured on IP at PUCRS and FADERGS. Fabiano is the author of Temas de Processo Civil na Propriedade Industrial (Thomson IOB, 2006) and Capítulos de Processo Civil na Propriedade Intelectual (Lumen Juris, 2009), and a member of OAB, ABAPI, ABPI and ASIPI.

15 CHAMBERS.COM

BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Fabiano de Bem da Rocha, Gustavo Bahuschewskyj Correa, Kamille Trindade Machado and Milton Lucídio Leão Barcellos, Leão Intellectual Property

Kamille Trindade Machado is a partner at Leão Intellectual Property and an attorney at law. She holds a Master’s in IP and Technology

Milton Lucídio Leão Barcellos is a senior partner at Leão Intellectual Property, an attorney at law and a patent attorney. He is the author of three IP books: “O sistema internacional de patentes (IOB/

Transfer for Innovation (PROFNIT/ IFRS) and is a PhD candidate in Intellectual Property and Innovation at the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI). She is the author of the book Trade Dress: From Theory to Practice in Identifying Violations (Lumen Juris, 2024). Her practice focuses on trade marks, copyright, digital law and advertising, including filing strategy and portfolio management, oppositions and cancellations before INPI, enforcement and anti- counterfeiting matters. Kamille also advises on licensing and assignments and supports clients on emerging IP topics involving data and AI.

Thomson, 2002), ”Propriedade Industrial & Constituição” (Do Advogado, 2007) and “Direito de patentes brasileiro” (Lumen Juris, 2025). His practice focuses on patents, trade secrets and know-how, including prosecution, litigation and strategic counselling for Brazilian and international clients. Milton holds an MSc and a PhD in Law from PUCRS, teaches intellectual property at Antonio Meneghetti Faculty of Law and is a court-appointed IP forensic expert. He is a member of ABAPI, ABPI, AIPPI, ATRIP, LES and INTA.

Leão Intellectual Property 757 Plinio Brasil Milano Avenue 4th and 13th Floors Porto Alegre - RS 90520-002 Brazil

Tel: +55 514 000 2199 Fax: +55 514 000 2199 Email: international@leao.adv.br Web: www.leao.adv.br

16 CHAMBERS.COM

BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Fabiano de Bem da Rocha, Gustavo Bahuschewskyj Correa, Kamille Trindade Machado and Milton Lucídio Leão Barcellos, Leão Intellectual Property

1. Patents 1.1 Legal Framework and Patentable Subject Matter Patent protection in Brazil is mainly governed by the Industrial Property Law (Law No 9,279/1996, as amended) and implementing regulations and guide- lines issued by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office ( Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial – INPI). The case law also helps to better understand the interpretation of the patent requirements (eg, patent- able subject matter, novelty, inventive step and suf- ficiency of disclosure). Brazil is a member and follows the rules of the Paris Convention, the Patent Coopera- tion Treaty (PCT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the “TRIPS Agreement”). Brazil provides two main patent rights: • patents of invention ( patente de invenção – PI); and • utility model patents ( modelo de utilidade – MU). Patentability generally requires novelty, inventive step (or “inventive act” for utility models) and indus- trial application. Both patents and utility models are subject to previous examination related to formal and substantive grounds. The law excludes certain subject matter (eg, discov- eries, abstract ideas, mathematical methods, busi- ness methods, computer programmes “as such” and methods of surgery/therapy/diagnosis). In practice, software-related and AI-related inventions may be patentable where the process/method and/or system claims are directed to a technical solution with a tech- nical effect, rather than to an algorithm or computer programme per se. Brazil does not have a European-style European Pat- ent Office (EPO) system. There is also no patent term adjustment (PTA)/supplementary protection certificate (SPC) or other patent term extension (PTE) available beyond the 20-year patent term for inventions and 15-year patent term for utility models (See Brazilian Supreme Court Decision of 2021 – ADI 5529).

1.2 Patent Granting Procedure Patents are examined and granted by INPI. A typi- cal prosecution flow includes filing (directly in Brazil for residents, using the Paris Convention or the most common track using the PCT route with national phase application), formal examination, publication (generally after an 18-month confidentiality period) and substantive (technical) examination. A request for examination is mandatory and must be filed within 36 months from the filing date (or earliest filing/priority in Brazil, depending on the route). Since 2024, INPI has indicated that it may prioritise exami- nation according to the date the examination request is filed, which can make earlier requests strategically relevant. Foreign applicants typically need representation in Brazil through a locally appointed attorney/agent to receive notifications and act before INPI according to Article 217 of the IP Law. Timelines vary materially by technology, and total costs depend on claim count, office actions, annuities and translation/representation expenses; INPI’s schedule of official fees is periodi- cally updated. The average elapsed time from exami- nation request to the examiner’s decision is between two and three years (which may vary considerably). Brazil has many Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) agreements and fast-track options related to patent prosecution, which can considerably reduce the time to the decision. 1.3 Scope, Term and Maintenance of Patent Rights A granted patent confers the right to prevent third par- ties, without consent, from producing, using, offering for sale, selling or importing a product covered by the patent, as well as using a patented process and sell- ing/using/importing a product obtained directly by a patented process. Scope of protection is defined by the claims, interpreted considering the specification and drawings. The standard term is 20 years from filing for patents of invention and 15 years from filing for utility models. Annual fees (annuities) apply, and non-payment can lead to shelving/termination, subject to restoration within statutory strict deadlines. Following the 2021

17 CHAMBERS.COM

BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Fabiano de Bem da Rocha, Gustavo Bahuschewskyj Correa, Kamille Trindade Machado and Milton Lucídio Leão Barcellos, Leão Intellectual Property

Brazilian Supreme Court’s decision in ADI 5.529 and subsequent legislative changes, the former rule that guaranteed a minimum term counted from grant was revoked; Brazil does not have any PTA/PTE/SPC sys- tem. 1.4 Ownership, Assignment and Licensing As a rule, the inventor (or the inventor’s heirs/succes- sors) is entitled to apply for a patent, but ownership may belong to an assignee or to the employer/service recipient depending on the employment or service relationship and the circumstances of the invention. Brazil has specific statutory rules for inventions and utility models made by employees or service provid- ers (Articles 88–93 of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law 9279/96). Assignments and licences should be made in writ- ing. While private instruments may be valid between the parties, recordal/annotation with INPI is typically required for the assignment or licence to be effec- tive against third parties and for certain effects (eg, remittance of royalties with tax refund possibilities and enforceability in some contexts). 1.5 Patent Infringement and Defences Patent infringement is assessed by comparing the accused product/process with the patent claims. Infringement may be literal (all claim elements are met) or, in appropriate cases, by equivalence. Contributory/ indirect infringement concepts may also arise depend- ing on the conduct (eg, supplying means or inducing infringement), but the analysis is case by case. Common limitations/defences include (among others): • prior user rights; statutory exceptions (eg, acts for experimental purposes); and • exhaustion in appropriate circumstances. Brazil also provides for compulsory licensing in spe- cific scenarios set out in the Industrial Property Law. Fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND)-type arguments are typically raised in standard-essential patent disputes as part of the broader proportionality/ competition and contractual analysis rather than as a standalone statutory defence. The Brazilian Com- petition Authority ( Conselho Administrativo de Defesa

Econômica – CADE) recently issued its Contribuições do CADE – Patentes Essenciais (CADE, July/2025). 1.6 Patent Enforcement and Remedies Brazil has a bifurcated system: patent infringement actions are generally filed in state courts, while patent invalidity actions must be filed in the federal courts, with INPI participating when it is not the plaintiff. Par- allel infringement and validity proceedings are there- fore common. Preliminary (including potentially ex parte) and per- manent injunctions may be available where the claim- ant shows likelihood of success and a risk of harm, subject to the general civil procedure requirements and reversibility considerations. Even though all the Brazilian States Courts follow the same IP procedural law, some Brazilian State Courts could be more willing to grant preliminary injunctions than others. Remedies for infringement may include cessation orders, sei- zure/recall measures in suitable cases and damages (typically assessed based on the circumstances of the infringement and evidentiary record). Courts may also award attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Brazilian procedural rules. 2. Trade Marks 2.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Signs Trade mark protection in Brazil is governed primar- ily by the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No 9,279/1996). Brazil adopts a registration-based sys- tem, meaning that exclusive rights over a trade mark are acquired upon registration. The law allows the protection of word marks, figurative marks, composite (mixed) marks and, under certain conditions, three-dimensional marks, provided they are distinctive and non-functional. Non-traditional marks such as sounds, scents and tastes are not currently registrable in Brazil. Colours alone are also not protectable unless arranged in a distinctive and specific manner. As a general rule, unregistered marks are not enforce- able; however, Brazilian law recognises limited protec- tion for prior good-faith users. In addition, well-known

18 CHAMBERS.COM

BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Fabiano de Bem da Rocha, Gustavo Bahuschewskyj Correa, Kamille Trindade Machado and Milton Lucídio Leão Barcellos, Leão Intellectual Property

marks are protected irrespective of local registration under the Paris Convention. 2.2 Requirements for Trade Mark Protection To be registrable, a trade mark must be distinctive, lawful and available, meaning it must not be descrip- tive or generic, must not violate public order or moral- ity, and must not conflict with prior third-party rights. Use in commerce is not a prerequisite for filing or reg- istration, although it becomes relevant for maintaining the registration. Acquired distinctiveness, or secondary meaning, may be demonstrated through evidence such as duration of use, advertising efforts, market recognition and consumer perception, although the Brazilian Pat- ent and Trademark Office tend to apply this doctrine restrictively. Well-known marks are protected regardless of reg- istration, while marks recognised as highly reputed ( marca de alto renome ) enjoy broader protection across all classes once such status is granted by INPI. 2.3 Trade Mark Registration System Trade mark registration is required to obtain full enforceable rights in Brazil. The procedure involves filing an application with INPI, followed by a formal examination, publication for opposition, a 60-day opposition period, substantive examination and a final decision. The average timeframe for obtaining registration ranges from 12 to 24 months, depending on whether oppositions or office actions arise. Official fees are relatively moderate, varying according to the applicant’s status, while professional fees depend on the complexity of the matter. Brazil does not allow multi-class applications, so separate applications must be filed for each class of goods or services. 2.4 Term, Use and Maintenance Trade mark registrations in Brazil are granted for a term of ten years counted from the date of grant and may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods.

Renewal must be requested within the last year of the registration term, although a six-month grace period is available upon payment of additional fees. The use of the mark is mandatory, and failure to use the mark for a continuous period of five years after registration may subject it to cancellation for non-use. Genuine use generally requires actual commercial exploitation of the mark in Brazil in connection with the registered goods or services, and minor variations that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark are typically accepted. 2.5 Trade Mark Rights and Limitations Registration grants the owner the exclusive right to use the mark throughout the Brazilian territory in con- nection with the registered goods or services, as well as the right to prevent third parties from using identical or confusingly similar signs. However, such rights are subject to certain limitations and defences, including fair descriptive use, use of one’s own name in good faith and the principle of exhaustion of rights, under which the trade mark own- er cannot oppose the circulation of products lawfully placed on the market. 2.6 Trade Mark Enforcement and Remedies Trade mark infringement in Brazil occurs when a third party uses an identical or similar sign in a manner likely to cause confusion or association among con- sumers. Although Brazilian law does not expressly regulate dilution in the same terms as some other jurisdictions, protection against dilution is indirectly recognised, particularly in cases involving highly reputed marks. Passing off is also addressed through unfair competition provisions. Trade mark disputes are typically heard by state courts, while federal courts have jurisdiction when INPI is a party to the case. Civil remedies include injunctions, damages, search and seizure measures and the destruction of infringing goods. Criminal rem- edies are also available for certain types of trade mark violations, including counterfeiting. Border enforce- ment measures may be adopted with the assistance of customs authorities to prevent the importation of counterfeit goods.

19 CHAMBERS.COM

Page i 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 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199