Adama Brasil v. UPL do Brasil: Soybean Fungicide Appeal Dismissed
Adama Brasil S/A pursued a declaratory judgment against UPL do Brasil over two Brazilian patents protecting CRONNOS®, a triple-protection fungicide for soybean rust control. The Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed the appeal, leaving the underlying patent rights intact. The case closed on 7 February 2024 with no merits ruling at appellate level.
Declaratory bid over CRONNOS® fungicide patents ends without merits ruling
Adama Brasil S/A, a Brazilian agrochemical company, filed a declaratory judgment action against UPL do Brasil, Indústria and Comércio de Insumos Agropecuários S.A., seeking a ruling concerning two Brazilian patents — BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1 — that cover CRONNOS®, marketed as a triple-protection fungicide targeting soybean rust. The case was heard before the Court of Justice of São Paulo, one of Brazil’s leading state appellate tribunals, under case number 2256514-52.2023.8.26.0000.
The Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed the appeal on 7 February 2024. A procedural dismissal at this level means the appellate panel declined to adjudicate the merits of the declaratory judgment claim, leaving the underlying dispute — and the validity or scope of the two CRONNOS® patents — unresolved by this particular ruling. UPL do Brasil, as the apparent patent holder, retains the presumption of validity for both registered patents in Brazil.
Because the filing date is not recorded in the publicly available data, the full duration of the litigation cannot be confirmed. The absence of a merits decision is commercially significant: it suggests the dispute may have been terminated on procedural grounds — such as standing, admissibility, or jurisdictional defect — rather than on any substantive assessment of the patents’ validity or infringement scope. Whether parallel proceedings or further challenges remain active in Brazil is not determinable from the public record alone.
Filing to dismissal in 0 days
Case closed 7 February 2024; filing date not on public record
Appeal dismissed: what the São Paulo ruling means for both parties
Procedural dismissal — no merits ruling on either patent
A dismissed appeal in a Brazilian declaratory judgment action means the appellate court declined to reach the substance of the claim. The court found a procedural bar — such as standing, admissibility, or a technical defect — that prevented it from ruling on whether BR102014029476B1 or BR122019027815B1 is valid or infringed. Neither patent has been invalidated or confirmed by this ruling.
No merits adjudicationAdama Brasil’s declaratory challenge ends without the ruling it sought
Adama Brasil sought a declaratory judgment — typically used to obtain legal certainty over whether a patent blocks a product or is valid — but obtained no substantive resolution. The dismissal means Adama gains no legal protection through this action. Whether a refiled or reframed challenge remains possible will depend on Brazilian procedural rules and the specific grounds for dismissal, which are not fully detailed in the public record.
No relief grantedUPL do Brasil retains full patent presumption on CRONNOS® technology
With no merits ruling adverse to UPL do Brasil, both BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1 remain in force with their full statutory presumption of validity under Brazilian law. UPL retains the right to enforce these patents against CRONNOS®-competing products. This outcome is effectively a procedural win for UPL, though it does not represent a judicial confirmation of the patents’ scope or strength.
Patents remain enforceableUncertainty persists for soybean rust fungicide competitors in Brazil
Brazil is one of the world’s largest soybean producers, making soybean rust fungicide IP commercially high-stakes. The dismissal without merits leaves the competitive landscape unclear for any company developing or marketing triple-protection fungicide formulations. Agrochemical companies active in Brazil’s crop protection market should monitor whether further proceedings are initiated, and should consider FTO analysis against both CRONNOS® patents before commercialisation.
Monitor for follow-on proceedingsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adama Brasil S/A | Individual | Brazilian agrochemical company — declaratory claimant against CRONNOS® fungicide patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | UPL do Brasil, Indústria and Comércio de Insumos Agropecuários S.A | Individual | UPL do Brasil — Brazilian agro-input manufacturer and apparent holder of CRONNOS® patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s ruling — ‘I DISMISS the appeal’ — is a procedural termination, not a substantive adjudication. Under Brazilian civil procedure, a dismissed appeal typically signals a failure to meet admissibility requirements rather than a judgment on the merits of the declaratory claim. This means neither the validity nor the infringement scope of BR102014029476B1 or BR122019027815B1 has been judicially assessed. UPL do Brasil’s patent position is unchanged; Adama Brasil obtains no declaratory relief.
BR102014029476B1 & BR122019027815B1 — CRONNOS® soybean rust fungicide
BR102014029476B1 and its family member BR122019027815B1 relate to CRONNOS®, described as a triple-protection fungicide formulation targeting soybean rust — one of the most economically damaging fungal diseases affecting soybean crops in Brazil and South America. The patents cover the formulation’s active ingredient combination or composition, suggesting protection over both the product chemistry and potentially its method of use in soybean cultivation. The filing of BR102014029476B1 in 2014 places its priority in a period of intensifying R&D investment in soybean crop protection across Brazil.
From a strategic standpoint, dual-patent protection over a leading fungicide brand in the world’s largest soybean market represents a significant IP moat. UPL do Brasil’s decision to assert both patents in a single declaratory judgment proceeding — rather than separately — suggests a coordinated enforcement posture. For competitors developing fungicide formulations with similar active ingredient profiles or application claims, both patents warrant close monitoring. The survival of both patents without a merits ruling reinforces UPL’s short-term enforcement leverage in the Brazilian agrochemical sector.
Should you run an FTO against BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1?
Any company developing, importing, or commercialising triple-protection fungicide products targeting soybean rust in Brazil should treat both CRONNOS® patents as active risk factors. The dismissal of Adama Brasil’s declaratory challenge without a merits ruling means neither patent has been invalidated or narrowed. R&D teams formulating multi-active fungicides for the Brazilian soybean market, and product teams planning registration with MAPA, should conduct a claim-level FTO review before advancing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map the claim scope of BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1 against your formulation or product pipeline in minutes. Eureka surfaces related family members, identifies white-space opportunities, and flags jurisdictions where protection lapses — providing the coverage intelligence needed to make commercialisation decisions in Brazil’s high-stakes crop protection market with confidence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BR102014029476B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar agrochemical fungicide patent cases in Brazilian courts
Browse declaratory judgment and patent enforcement cases involving fungicide and crop protection IP before the Court of Justice of São Paulo and Brazilian federal courts.
What this case signals for Brazil’s agrochemical patent IP landscape
A procedural dismissal in São Paulo leaves soybean rust fungicide IP uncontested — and raises strategic questions for every competitor in the Brazilian crop protection market.
Declaratory judgment dismissals leave patent risk unresolved in Brazil
When a declaratory judgment appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds, neither party obtains a definitive ruling on patent validity or scope. For agrochemical companies operating in Brazil, this means the competitive threat from CRONNOS® patents BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1 remains legally live. Companies should not interpret the dismissal as clearing their freedom to operate.
UPL do Brasil’s CRONNOS® patents survive without judicial scrutiny
The dismissal is structurally advantageous for UPL do Brasil: both patents emerge from litigation without having their claims tested. This strengthens UPL’s enforcement posture in the short term. Competitors seeking to challenge these patents may need to pursue administrative invalidation routes through INPI — Brazil’s patent office — rather than relying on declaratory court actions.
Adama v UPL — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed Adama Brasil’s appeal in its declaratory judgment action against UPL do Brasil concerning patents BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1, which cover the CRONNOS® soybean rust fungicide. The dismissal was procedural — no merits ruling was issued on the validity or scope of either patent. The case closed on 7 February 2024.
Two Brazilian patents were at issue: BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1. Both relate to CRONNOS®, a triple-protection fungicide formulation for soybean rust marketed by UPL do Brasil. Adama Brasil sought declaratory relief concerning these patents; the appeal was dismissed without a merits determination on either patent.
No. A procedural dismissal does not constitute a finding on patent validity. Both BR102014029476B1 and BR122019027815B1 remain in force with their full presumption of validity under Brazilian law. UPL do Brasil retains the right to enforce both patents. The dismissal means the appellate court did not reach the substance of Adama Brasil’s declaratory claims.
In Brazil, a declaratory judgment action (ação declaratória) can be used by a company to seek a court declaration that a patent is invalid, not infringed, or does not affect a particular product. It is typically used to obtain legal certainty before or instead of waiting for a patent holder to bring an infringement claim. In this case, Adama Brasil used this mechanism against UPL do Brasil’s CRONNOS® patents, but the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.
The public record does not specify the grounds for dismissal, making it difficult to confirm available next steps. Generally, following a dismissed appeal in Brazil, a party may consider: refiling if the defect is curable; pursuing administrative nullity proceedings before INPI (Brazil’s patent office); or challenging the patents through different legal instruments. Whether any of these routes remain viable for Adama Brasil depends on the specific procedural basis for the dismissal, which is not fully disclosed in the available case data.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.