Ep Telecom Servicos Ltda v. Acumuladores Moura S/A.

2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000 Court of Justice of Sao Paulo Closed BRPI2015573A2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo and closed 1 Dec 2023, with BRPI2015573A2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Dataยท

Case record

Patent involved
BRPI2015573A2
Case no.
2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000
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
MODULAR SHIELDED SET AUTO CARRIER FOR EXTERNAL PROTECTION OF BATTERIES PARKING
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000, 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 chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"Same than Timely Was this appeal, a fact now admitted only for the sake of argument, the dismissal of it would be rigorous, in terms and under the grounds inserted in the processing decision, reiterated herein to form an integral part thereofIn view of the above, it is NOT KNOWN of the resource."

Case 2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000 · Court of Justice of Sao Paulo · closed 1 December 2023
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.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000?

2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000 is a patent infringement action brought by Ep Telecom Servicos Ltda against Acumuladores Moura S/A. in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo. The case closed on 1 December 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000?

BRPI2015573A2. The record also lists MODULAR SHIELDED SET AUTO CARRIER FOR EXTERNAL PROTECTION OF BATTERIES PARKING.

How was case 2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: "Same than Timely Was this appeal, a fact now admitted only for the sake of argument, the dismissal of it would be rigorous, in terms and under the grounds inserted in the processing decision, reiterated herein to form an integral part thereofIn view of the above, it is NOT KNOWN of the resource."

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2271640-45.2023.8.26.0000 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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.