Agrosul v. Duravant Brazil: Da Vinci DPM 6000 Deboning Machine Patent Dispute
Agrosul Agroavicola Industrial S.A. brought an infringement action against Duravant Brazil Ltda before the Court of Justice of São Paulo over patent BR112017016154B1, covering the Da Vinci DPM 6000 poultry leg deboning machine. The appellate panel partially granted the appeal, revoking urgent interim relief while preserving document custody orders.
São Paulo appeals court splits interim relief in deboning machine IP row
Agrosul Agroavicola Industrial S.A., a Brazilian agro-industrial operator, initiated an infringement action against Duravant Brazil Ltda before the Court of Justice of São Paulo (Case No. 2114879-49.2024.8.26.0000). The dispute centres on patent BR112017016154B1, which protects technology embodied in the Da Vinci DPM 6000, an automated poultry leg deboning machine used in industrial meat-processing operations. Duravant Brazil, the local arm of the global food-processing equipment group Duravant, is named as the aggravated party in the interlocutory appeal.
The appellate chamber closed the matter on 23 October 2024 by partially granting the interlocutory appeal (agravo de instrumento). The panel revoked the urgent relief that had been granted at pages 258–259 of the originating case file — relief that had, in effect, placed operational or commercial restrictions on Duravant Brazil. However, the court maintained the order requiring Duravant to hold and preserve the documentation demanded by Agrosul, suggesting the underlying infringement proceedings in the court of first instance remain live.
The partial nature of the outcome is commercially significant: Duravant Brazil recovers operational freedom lost under the now-revoked urgent order, yet the documentary custody requirement signals that the merits-level infringement case is ongoing. The public record does not disclose the full scope of the original urgent relief, nor the precise legal basis on which it was partially overturned, leaving the ultimate outcome of the underlying infringement action unresolved and warranting continued monitoring.
Filing to Appeal Granted In Part in 0 days
Case closed 23 October 2024; filing date not available in public record
Appeal partially granted: what the São Paulo ruling means for both parties
Agravo de instrumento: interlocutory appeal, not final merits ruling
An agravo de instrumento under Brazilian civil procedure is an interlocutory appeal challenging a specific interim order, not the final judgment on the merits. The São Paulo appellate panel’s decision to partially grant the appeal modifies the procedural posture of the case without resolving the underlying infringement claim. The originating action before the trial court is understood to continue.
Interlocutory — merits pendingDuravant recovers operational freedom but faces ongoing document obligations
By revoking the urgent relief originally granted at pages 258–259, the appellate panel removes the most commercially disruptive element of the interim order against Duravant Brazil. This may restore the ability to sell, distribute, or service the Da Vinci DPM 6000 in Brazil. However, the maintained custody of documentation means Duravant must continue to preserve and make available records that could be material evidence in the underlying infringement trial.
Partial win for DuravantAgrosul loses interim enforcement leverage but retains document discovery
Agrosul’s most immediate enforcement tool — the urgent relief order — has been revoked on appeal, reducing its short-term pressure on Duravant Brazil’s commercial operations. The survival of the document custody requirement preserves Agrosul’s ability to build an evidentiary record for the substantive infringement phase. The patent holder’s ultimate remedy depends on the outcome of proceedings before the court of first instance.
Enforcement leverage reducedPoultry processing equipment sector faces continued patent enforcement risk
This dispute highlights active patent enforcement in Brazil’s food-processing machinery sector. Companies distributing or integrating automated deboning systems such as the Da Vinci DPM 6000 should assess freedom-to-operate exposure under BR112017016154B1. The case also signals that Brazilian courts are prepared to grant — and later calibrate — interim relief in equipment infringement disputes, creating procedural uncertainty for market participants.
FTO risk in Brazil food-tech sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agrosul Agroavicola Industrial S.A. | Individual | Brazilian agro-industrial processor — holder of patent BR112017016154B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Duravant Brazil Ltda | Individual | Duravant Brazil Ltda — local subsidiary of global food-processing equipment group DuravantSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The appellate panel’s partial grant is carefully scoped: it targets the specific urgent relief recorded at pages 258–259 of the originating file, leaving all other aspects of the first-instance proceedings intact. The explicit retention of document custody obligations indicates the court distinguished between commercially disruptive emergency measures — which it found insufficiently supported — and evidentiary preservation, which it treated as proportionate. This bifurcated outcome is consistent with Brazilian courts applying a proportionality test to interim relief in IP proceedings. The underlying infringement claim on the merits of BR112017016154B1 remains unresolved.
BR112017016154B1 — automated poultry leg deboning machine technology
Patent BR112017016154B1 protects technology relating to automated poultry leg deboning, as embodied in the Da Vinci DPM 6000 system. The ‘BR’ national phase designation indicates entry into the Brazilian patent system, most likely via a PCT application, with the ‘B1’ suffix denoting a granted patent with full examination. The technology domain — precision mechanical deboning of poultry legs — sits at the intersection of food safety, processing yield optimisation, and labour reduction in industrial-scale poultry operations.
Automated deboning systems represent a high-value segment of the food-processing equipment market, where yield improvements of even a fraction of a percentage point translate to significant revenue at scale. A granted Brazilian patent over deboning machinery creates a meaningful barrier to competitors seeking to supply comparable equipment into the Brazilian poultry processing sector — one of the world’s largest. The active enforcement of this patent by Agrosul against Duravant Brazil, a well-resourced global equipment supplier, signals confidence in the patent’s scope and suggests the claim coverage is commercially material.
Should you run an FTO analysis against BR112017016154B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or integrating automated poultry leg deboning equipment in Brazil should treat BR112017016154B1 as a priority clearance item. The patent is demonstrably being enforced — urgent relief has already been obtained at first instance against a major global equipment supplier. Poultry processors, integrators, and distributors of competing deboning systems operating in the Brazilian market face a live freedom-to-operate risk until the underlying infringement proceedings are resolved.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claim scope of BR112017016154B1 against their own equipment architecture and identify design-around opportunities before market entry. Eureka’s citation graph and Brazilian patent family tracker can also reveal whether related applications or divisionals extend the coverage horizon, ensuring your clearance analysis accounts for the full patent family and any pending continuation risk in the BPTO pipeline.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BR112017016154B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent disputes: automated food-processing equipment in Brazilian courts
Explore related infringement actions involving automated food-processing and poultry equipment patents litigated before Brazilian state and federal courts.
What this case signals for the food-processing equipment IP landscape in Brazil
Interim relief in Brazilian patent disputes can be granted and partially reversed quickly, creating both risk and opportunity for equipment makers and processors.
Brazilian courts will grant and then recalibrate interim relief in patent disputes
The São Paulo appellate panel’s willingness to revoke urgent relief while preserving documentary obligations shows that interim orders in Brazilian patent cases are not permanent. Equipment suppliers facing injunctive risk should consider interlocutory appeals promptly — the appellate process can restore operational freedom even before a merits ruling.
Document custody orders are a durable discovery tool even after relief is revoked
Agrosul’s preservation of the document custody order suggests Brazilian courts treat evidentiary preservation as distinct from commercial disruption. Patent holders pursuing infringement claims should seek standalone document custody relief as a resilient strategy, independent of broader urgent orders that are more vulnerable to interlocutory challenge.
S.A. v Duravant — key questions answered
The appellate chamber partially granted the interlocutory appeal on 23 October 2024. It revoked the urgent relief previously granted against Duravant Brazil but maintained the order requiring Duravant to preserve and hold relevant documentation. The underlying infringement action concerning patent BR112017016154B1 and the Da Vinci DPM 6000 continues before the court of first instance.
BR112017016154B1 is a granted Brazilian patent, most likely entered via the PCT national phase given the BR11 prefix. It covers technology relating to automated poultry leg deboning, as embodied in the Da Vinci DPM 6000 machine. The patent is held by or associated with Agrosul Agroavicola Industrial S.A. and is being enforced in infringement proceedings against Duravant Brazil Ltda.
An agravo de instrumento is an interlocutory appeal under Brazilian civil procedure (CPC) that challenges a specific interim or procedural order, not the final judgment on the merits. In patent infringement cases, it is commonly used to challenge or defend interim injunctive relief. A partial grant on an agravo modifies the interim posture of the case without adjudicating infringement or validity.
The Da Vinci DPM 6000 is an automated poultry leg deboning machine manufactured and distributed by Duravant Brazil Ltda as part of the Duravant group’s food-processing equipment portfolio. Agrosul alleges that the machine infringes patent BR112017016154B1. The machine is used in large-scale industrial poultry processing operations and represents a commercially significant product category in Brazil’s poultry sector.
No. The 23 October 2024 ruling resolved only the interlocutory appeal over interim relief. The appellate panel explicitly maintained the document custody order, which is consistent with the underlying infringement proceedings on the merits of BR112017016154B1 continuing before the court of first instance. A final determination on infringement has not been recorded in the available public case data.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.