In 2024, royalties and other payments for the use of intangible assets in Brazil —such as trademarks, software, industrial designs, and know-how — exceeded USD 109 billion, according to World Bank data¹. This figure corresponds to inflows recorded in the Balance of Payments for the exploitation of intellectual property, reflecting the growing importance of intangibles in the national economy.

According to 2024 reports from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)² ³, Brazil also ranked prominently in global IP activity, with strong volumes of trademark and patent filings and in R&D. Investments in intangible assets grew at a faster pace than investments in physical assets 4. Investments in intangibles have grown faster than those in physical assets, underscoring their strategic importance for competitiveness, innovation, and revenue diversification

A recurring challenge for licensors, however, is underreported royalties—when licensees fail to disclose accurate sales or revenue figures, resulting in reduced payments. While contracts often include audit clauses, uncovering underpayments in global licensing networks can take years. This makes the statute of limitations for filing royalty claims a critical issue, since late-discovered claims risk being time-barred.

Because there is no specific provision in Brazilian law, doctrine and case law followed three main interpretations based on provisions of the Civil Code:

• A ten-year term (art. 205), applied generally when no specific provision exists;
• A five-year term (art. 206, § 5º, I), applicable to liquid debts under written contracts;
• A three-year term (art. 206, § 3º, IV), applicable when no formal contract exists between the parties, leading to unjust enrichment.

This lack of uniformity generated constant legal uncertainty, until case law gradually moved toward a more consistent understanding.

To understand the discussion on statutes of limitations, it is important to note that Brazil has a civil law system, in which laws enacted by the legislature provide the primary source of legal rules. The judiciary interprets and applies these laws, and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) serves as the highest court for ensuring uniform interpretation of federal law, particularly in non-constitutional matters. Decisions from lower courts can vary across states, so STJ rulings play a crucial role in creating consistency and legal certainty throughout the country.

Early Jurisprudence and the Shift Toward Uniformity

The three-year term gained some traction following a 2017 Superior Court of Justice5 precedent, which applied the three-year limitation in Article 206, § 3º, to civil liability claims, encompassing both contractual and extra-contractual liability.

Based on this precedent, the Court of Appeals of the State of Goiás 6 ruled on a damages action involving unauthorized reproduction of a musical work, initially applying the three-year term. The first-instance court held in 2019 that, absent a direct contractual link, the relationship was extra-contractual, subject to the shorter limitation.

However, the Court of Appeals of the State of Goiás later overturned that decision, recognizing a contractual relationship between composer and performer. The Superior Court of Justice 7 upheld this in a 2021 ruling, reaffirming the ten-year limitation for contractual breaches. The Superior Court of Justice stressed that when the violation stems from a contractual obligation, the broader statute of limitation should prevail. 8

In parallel, the Superior Court of Justice applied the ten-year limitation to copyright and intellectual property disputes by analogy, particularly in complex licensing contracts. This approach was reinforced in Special Appeal No. 1.281.594/SP (2019), where the Court distinguished between contractual and extra-contractual liability and established that, in doubt, the longer period should protect the creditor.

The 2019 and 2021 Turning Points

A landmark moment came in Special Appeal No. 1.280.825 (2019), reported by Justice Nancy Andrighi. In this case, the Superior Court of Justice ruled that, as a general rule, contractual breach claims are subject to the ten-year term in Art. 205, while the three-year term in Art. 206, § 3º, IV, applies only to extra-contractual liability. However, when the contractual obligation is liquid and established in a written instrument, the five-year term in Art. 206, § 5º, I, applies.

This distinction was reaffirmed in Special Appeal No. 1.837.219/SP (2021), reported by Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, involving royalty payments for the use of plant varieties regulated by Law No. 9.456/1997. The Court held that liquid debts under written contracts are subject to the five-year limitation, strengthening legal certainty in sectors like agribusiness, where licensing contracts are common.

Implications for Industrial Property

These rulings bring greater legal certainty to royalty disputes in Brazil. In practice:

• Licensors benefit from clearer enforceability of claims and stronger grounds to pursue unpaid royalties.
• Licensees gain visibility into the timeframe during which claims may arise, improving risk management.

Importantly, Brazil’s Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996), like other applicable IP-related statutes, such as like the Plant Variety Law, does not contain its own statute of limitations for royalty litigation. The Civil Code framework therefore applies, meaning royalty claims under written licensing agreements are generally subject to a five-year

Conclusion

The Superior Court of Justice’s guidance has harmonized the application of limitation periods for royalty claims, reducing divergent interpretations across Brazil’s courts. By distinguishing between contractual and extra-contractual obligations, the Court has strengthened legal certainty in IP licensing relationships.