BRPI2015573A2
- Legal status
- None recorded
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
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.
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|
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
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
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.
BRPI2015573A2. The record also lists MODULAR SHIELDED SET AUTO CARRIER FOR EXTERNAL PROTECTION OF BATTERIES PARKING.
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."
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.
This page