A. C. v. C. B. Ltda
Infringement action filed in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo and closed 12 Jul 2023, with BR102013026009B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- BR102013026009B1
- Application no.
- BR102013026009
- Case no.
- 2185781-95.2022.8.26.0000/50000
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Court of Justice of Sao Paulo
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- None recorded
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Other
- Filed – Closed
- None recorded
- Duration
- None recorded
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Development process of steel kits for ballistic application
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
PROCESSO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO DE KITS DE AÇO PARA APLICAÇÃO BALÍSTICA
RESUMO “PROCESSO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO DE KITS DE AÇO PARA APLICAÇÃO BALÍSTICA”. A presente invenção refere-se a um processo que inclui a utilização de moldes (1) de um veículo previamente definido, molde este onde são realizadas marcações de recortes, curvas, ângulos, dimensões e dobras, que, levadas à vetorização gráfica (3) em computador, passando a gerar matrizes (4) em arquivo gráfico que são distribuídas e arranjadas computacionalmente sobre uma área que representa a chapa de aço (5), conformando o “kit de aço” (K) que, por sua vez, é submetido à máquina de corte CNC (6) e dobradeira (7), gerando as peças de aço inoxidável (P) ou outro material adequado utilizadas na blindagem do veículo inicialmente definido; o ‘kit de aço’ (K) torna a blindagem de veículos mais célere, com custo otimizado e garantido a repetitividade. 1 /1
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Jan 2018
- Est. expiry
- 9 Oct 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ALEX CIRILLO
- Classification
- B21C51/00B21D28/00B21D5/00
Parties of record
A. C.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
C. B. Ltda
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Thus, the defects pointed out in the judgment do not exist Embargoed. That being said, and considering all the more than the record it appears by my vote to reject the opposing embargoes.”
Case 2185781-95.2022.8.26.0000/50000 · Court of Justice of Sao Paulo · closed 12 July 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2185781-95.2022.8.26.0000/50000?
2185781-95.2022.8.26.0000/50000 is a patent infringement action brought by A. C. against C. B. Ltda in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo. The case closed on 12 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2185781-95.2022.8.26.0000/50000?
BR102013026009B1 (“PROCESSO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO DE KITS DE AÇO PARA APLICAÇÃO BALÍSTICA”), assigned to ALEX CIRILLO, currently active. The record also lists Development process of steel kits for ballistic application.
How was case 2185781-95.2022.8.26.0000/50000 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “Thus, the defects pointed out in the judgment do not exist Embargoed. That being said, and considering all the more than the record it appears by my vote to reject the opposing embargoes.”
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2185781-95.2022.8.26.0000/50000 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.