A specialist in technology, banking, financial services, cryptoassets and innovation issues, Paulo is a Distinguished Professor at Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo and a graduate and postgraduate professor in Business Law and Law & Technology at the same institution.
Paulo is a member of the International Technology Law Association (ITechLaw), having previously served as a board member for six years. He has also served as chairman of the Brazilian Association of Information Technology and Communications (ABDTIC).
Paulo is the author of the book Contratos de Software, Direito da Concorrência e Propriedade Intelectual, Contratos de Licenciamento de Propriedade Industrial (Software Agreements, Competition Law and Intellectual Property, Industrial Property Licensing Agreements), and has co-authored another three – A Proteção de Dados Pessoais no Brasil (Personal Data Protection in Brazil), Desafios Atuais do Direito da Concorrência (Current Challenges in Competition Law) and Desafios Atuais da Regulação Econômica e Concorrência (Current Challenges in Economic and Competition Regulation). He is also the editor of the law journal Direito Empresarial na Economia Digital (Business Law in the Digital Economy).
Bachelor of Laws – Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP);
Master of Laws in Comparative Civil Law – Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP);
Doctor of Laws in Economic Law – Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP);
Distinguished Professor (livre-docente) – Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP).
Análise Advocacia 500 – Construction and Engineering (2020), Digital (2020), São Paulo (2020);
Chambers Brazil (formerly Chambers Latin America): Technology (2018 – 2021), Telecommunications (2018);
Latin Lawyer 250 – Telecoms & Media Data, Technology and Privacy Law, and Intellectual Property (2020 – 2021);
Leader’s League: Technologies, Internet & Telecommunications (2018);
LACCA Approved – Corporate/M&A (2019 – 2021);
The Legal 500 – Dispute Resolution (2015), TMT: Cybersecurity and Data Privacy, TMT: Tech, Innovation and Digital Business (2015 – 2019, 2021 – 2022), Corporate and M&A (2015 – 2017), Competition and Antitrust (2015 – 2018).
Único. The Mattos Filho news portal
Mattos Filho in the media
Approved on 15 March 2022, Anatel Resolution No. 749/2022 determines the assignment of specific numbers for telecoms services. The new resolution aims to ensure that current regulations keep up with the sector’s rapid technological development, especially with regard to the internet of things (IoT) and machine-to-machine (M2M) solutions – ensuring compatibility, integrated operations and interconnection between networks.
Click to read the Lexology article.
Areas of expertise
During virtual court sessions held between May 22 and 28, 2020, the Brazilian Supreme Court (“STF”) decided that the levy of the Brazilian Tax on Services (“ISS”) on franchise agreements is constitutional. The case under analysis (Extraordinary Appeal No. 603,136) discussed the collection of ISS on a franchise agreement of a food supply franchise.
In summary, the discussion on the levy of ISS focuses on the fact that Brazilian franchise laws, both the old (Law No. 8,955/1994) and the new (Law No. 13,966/2019), establish that the franchise system is one in which a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademark and other intellectual property rights, associated with the right to produce or provide products or services, as well as the right to use methods and systems for implementation and management of its business. In other words, the franchise agreement has a hybrid legal nature involving the “legal obligations ‘to give/deliver’ something and ‘to do’ something”.
Historically, the STF had recognized “the provision of services” as the element for the levy of ISS referred to as a “legal obligation ‘to do’ something”, as verified in several rulings and in the STF’s Binding Precedent 31, which rules that the levy of ISS on lease agreement transactions is unconstitutional since it refers to a “legal obligation ‘to give/deliver’ something and not ‘to do’ something”.
However, with the present ruling, the STF changed its historical understanding and determined with the effect of general application that “The levy of ISS on franchise agreements (items 10.04 and 17.08 of the service list attached to Supplementary Law No. 116/2003) is constitutional.”
It should be noted that STF Justice Gilmar Mendes, in his winning vote, clarified that the Binding Precedent 31 shall not be applied in transactions of a hybrid legal nature.
Given the impact of this decision, the representatives of industry have informed that a Motion for Clarification will be filed requesting the modulation of the effects of the decision, in order for it to be applied prospectively only.
Our team will continue to follow the updates on the case and is at your disposal for any clarification. For more information on this subject, please contact our Intellectual Property and Tax practices.
 As recalled in the vote of Justice Celso de Mello and Justice Marco Aurelio, who diverged from the majority.
Areas of expertise
Stay in touch
Get first-hand access to legal analysis from our specialists in different sectors through texts and podcasts. Stay on top of the main issues that impact your business.