Book a demo
M. A. Rossini Lopes v. Andre Lopes — Drilling Rig Patent Appeal | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1005121-04.2022.8.26.0363
FiledInvalid Date
ClosedOct 2024
Patent Litigation

M. A. Rossini Lopes v. Andre Lopes: Drilling Rig Patent Appeal Granted

M. A. Rossini Lopes Me brought a declaratory judgement action before the Court of Justice of São Paulo involving patent BRMU1326729U2, covering the HSL 520 and HSL 620 drilling rigs. The lower court extinguished the lawsuit, but the appellate chamber reversed that extinction, ordering the case to proceed on the merits.

Resolution time
0days
Case closed 29 October 2024; filing date not available in the public record
Patents asserted
1
BRMU1326729U2 — HSL 520 and HSL 620 drilling rigs, mechanical drilling equipment
Outcome
Appeal Granted
Lower court extinction annulled; action remanded for regular proceedings on the merits
Cost ruling
Not Recorded
No costs or fee ruling is visible in the publicly available case record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

São Paulo court revives extinguished drilling rig patent action

M. A. Rossini Lopes Me, a Brazilian entity, initiated a declaratory judgement action — Case No. 1005121-04.2022.8.26.0363 — before the Court of Justice of São Paulo against Andre Lopes. The dispute centres on patent BRMU1326729U2 and its relationship to two commercial drilling rigs: the HSL 520 and the HSL 620. The precise filing date is not available in the public record, but the appellate decision was issued on 29 October 2024.

The court of first instance extinguished the lawsuit procedurally, without reaching the substantive merits of the declaratory judgement claim. M. A. Rossini Lopes Me appealed that extinction, and the appellate chamber of the Court of Justice of São Paulo granted the appeal. The judgment of extinction was annulled, and the case was returned to the court of origin for regular procedural progress — meaning the merits of the declaratory claim remain fully unresolved.

The outcome is procedural rather than substantive: no finding has been made on the validity, ownership, or infringement of BRMU1326729U2. The appellate panel’s decision suggests the lower court’s grounds for extinction were legally insufficient. What drove the original extinction — whether a standing defect, procedural irregularity, or another bar — is not specified in the available public record, leaving the ultimate commercial and IP outcome of this dispute open.

Case at a glance
Case no.1005121-04.2022.8.26.0363
DefendantAndre Lopes
CourtCourt of Justice of Sao Paulo
JudgeN/A
FiledN/A
ClosedOctober 29, 2024
Duration0 days
OutcomeAppeal Granted
Verdict causeDeclaratory Judgement
BasisAppeal Granted
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from Brazilian court docket / Court of Justice of Sao Paulo via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Appeal Granted in 0 days

Case closed 29 October 2024; filing date not available in the public record

Case timeline: Complaint filed , MID — 0 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in M. A. Rossini Lopes Me v Andre Lopes from filing to resolution. Source: Brazilian court docket, Court of Justice of Sao Paulo. Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 29 2024 Appeal Granted 0 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Appeal granted: extinction annulled, case proceeds to merits

Legal mechanism

What ‘appeal granted’ means in Brazilian civil procedure

When a Brazilian appellate court grants an appeal against a judgment of extinction, it annuls the lower court’s decision to close the proceedings without examining the merits. The case is remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow the action to proceed normally. No finding on the underlying patent claim has been made at this stage — the ruling is purely procedural.

Procedural remand
Plaintiff outcome

Rossini Lopes recovers its day in court on the merits

For M. A. Rossini Lopes Me, the appellate ruling is a procedural win: the avenue to litigate the declaratory judgement claim on its merits has been restored. The company may now advance its substantive arguments regarding patent BRMU1326729U2 and the HSL 520 and HSL 620 drilling rigs before the court of origin. Whether this translates into a substantive victory depends entirely on future proceedings.

Merits access restored
Defendant outlook

Andre Lopes must now defend the claim on its substance

The appellate ruling removes the procedural shield that extinguished the action at first instance. Andre Lopes will now need to engage with the substantive declaratory judgement claims relating to BRMU1326729U2 before the originating court. The merits phase introduces new factual and legal exposure around the drilling rig patent that the earlier extinction had forestalled.

Substantive risk now live
Commercial implications

Uncertainty over HSL drilling rig patent rights continues

Until the merits of the declaratory judgement are resolved, the scope and enforceability of BRMU1326729U2 as it relates to the HSL 520 and HSL 620 drilling rigs remains commercially uncertain. Manufacturers, distributors, or licensees operating in the Brazilian drilling equipment market with exposure to HSL-series products should monitor the progress of proceedings at the court of origin.

IP status unresolved
Legal analysis based on Brazilian court docket docket records for case 1005121-04.2022.8.26.0363 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffM. A. Rossini Lopes MeIndividualBrazilian entity asserting patent BRMU1326729U2 over HSL-series drilling rigsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantAndre LopesIndividualIndividual respondent named in the drilling rig patent declaratory actionSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeCourt of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Having said that and considering everything else that appears in the records, by my vote, I GRANT the appeal filed to annul the judgment of extinction of the lawsuit, with the determination of regular progress of the action at the origin.”
Source: Brazilian court docket Docket, Case 1005121-04.2022.8.26.0363, Court of Justice of Sao Paulo

The appellate panel’s ruling — granting the appeal and annulling the lower court’s judgment of extinction — reflects a finding that the procedural basis on which the first-instance court closed the proceedings was legally untenable. The court ordered ‘regular progress of the action at the origin,’ which confirms that no merits adjudication has occurred. The substantive declaratory judgement claims concerning BRMU1326729U2 and the HSL drilling rigs remain entirely open and will now be examined at first instance.

Brazilian court docket case 1005121-04.2022.8.26.0363 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

BRMU1326729U2 — HSL 520 and HSL 620 drilling rig utility model

Publication No.BRMU1326729U2
Patent details
ProductHSL 520 and HSL 620 series mechanical drilling rig equipment
Cited in actionN/A

BRMU1326729U2 is a Brazilian utility model patent — designated by the ‘MU’ prefix in the INPI numbering system — covering the HSL 520 and HSL 620 drilling rigs. Utility models in Brazil protect functional improvements to existing tools or objects and carry a protection term of up to 15 years from filing. The patent’s specific technical claims relating to the drilling rig configuration are not publicly detailed in the case record, but the involvement of two distinct rig models suggests the scope may extend to a product family rather than a single configuration.

For the Brazilian drilling equipment market, BRMU1326729U2 represents a potential barrier to competitors manufacturing or commercialising equipment in the HSL class. Utility model patents in Brazil are not subject to the same substantive examination rigour as invention patents, which can make their enforceability in litigation contested. The declaratory judgement framing of this dispute suggests that the scope or ownership of the patent — rather than straightforward infringement — is likely the central issue, which has strategic implications for how the merits phase will unfold.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against BRMU1326729U2?

Any company developing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing drilling rigs in Brazil — particularly equipment functionally comparable to the HSL 520 or HSL 620 — should treat BRMU1326729U2 as an active risk until the merits of this case are resolved. The appellate reinstatement of the action means the patent’s enforceability is under active judicial scrutiny, and a merits-phase outcome could clarify or expand its commercial reach.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claim scope of BRMU1326729U2 against their own product specifications, identify prior art that may bear on the utility model’s validity, and monitor litigation developments in real time. Running a targeted FTO now — before the first-instance merits hearing — provides the clearest window for strategic response.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU1326729U2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar drilling equipment patent cases in Brazilian courts

Explore comparable utility model patent disputes involving mechanical drilling equipment before the Court of Justice of São Paulo and INPI proceedings.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
M. A. Rossini Lopes Me patent enforcement history, Court of Justice of Sao Paulo case history, M. A. Rossini Lopes Me’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
HSL rig patent disputesBrazil utility model casesSão Paulo patent appealsDrilling equipment IP cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for drilling equipment IP in Brazil

A procedural reversal before the Court of Justice of São Paulo keeps patent BRMU1326729U2 alive and commercially significant.

Procedural extinctions in Brazil are not necessarily final

This case illustrates that a first-instance extinction of a patent action in Brazil can be successfully challenged on appeal. IP rights holders whose cases are dismissed on procedural grounds should evaluate appellate options before treating the matter as closed.

Declaratory judgement actions are a key IP tool in Brazil

The use of a declaratory judgement vehicle in this case is consistent with Brazilian practice for resolving patent ownership and scope disputes. Companies operating in the drilling equipment sector should understand how such actions interact with utility model patents like BRMU1326729U2.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis of drilling equipment utility model enforcement at the Court of Justice of São Paulo.
FTO risk analysisUtility model scopeBrazil enforcement trends
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Me v Andre — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor the HSL drilling rig patent case as it proceeds to merits

The merits of BRMU1326729U2 are now set to be litigated at first instance. PatSnap Eureka lets you track the patent’s status, map its claim scope against competitor products, and receive alerts on new filings.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.