BRMU1326729U2
Patent standing
- Legal status
- None recorded
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
Case record
- Patent involved
- BRMU1326729U2
- Case no.
- 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363
- 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 in Part
- Products & marks
- The EM400CFA equipment
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363, Court of Justice of Sao Paulo.
Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
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 chart10,000 free credits to start
BRMU1326729U2
Assess invalidity risk
- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document.
Break down the claims
Parties of record
Plaintiff
André Lopes
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Defendant
Czm Indústria de Equipamentos Ltda
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.
Compare both portfolios
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim"Having said that and considering everything else that appears in the record, by my vote, I DISMISS the appeal filed by the defendant and I PARTIALLY GRANT the plaintiff's appeal to order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff: a) compensation for material damages, under the terms of articles 208 and 210, of Law No. 9279/96, to be determined in liquidation by judgment; b) compensation for moral damages in the amount of 2 Since the plaintiff pleaded for the condemnation to pay compensation for moral damages in the amount of R$50,000.00.R$ 30,000.00 (thirty thousand reais), monetarily adjusted as of the publication of this judgment, with the incidence of default interest from the date of the summons, maintaining, in addition, the conviction imposed as to the abstention from infringement of the author's patent."
Case 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363 · Court of Justice of Sao Paulo · closed 4 November 2025
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
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 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363?
1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363 is a patent infringement action brought by André Lopes against Czm Indústria de Equipamentos Ltda in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo. The case closed on 4 November 2025.
Which patent was asserted in 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363?
BRMU1326729U2. The record also lists The EM400CFA equipment.
How was case 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed in part. The termination text reads: "Having said that and considering everything else that appears in the record, by my vote, I DISMISS the appeal filed by the defendant and I PARTIALLY GRANT the plaintiff's appeal to order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff: a) compensation for material damages, under the terms of articles 208 and 210, of Law No. 9279/96, to be determined in liquidation by judgment; b) compensation for moral damages in the amount of 2 Since the plaintiff pleaded for the condemnation to pay compensation for moral damages in the amount of R$50,000.00.R$ 30,000.00 (thirty thousand reais), monetarily adjusted as
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363 and do not constitute legal advice.
Ask your own question
Browse related dockets
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1003018-58.2021.8.26.0363 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.