BRMU1326523U2
- 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 28 Nov 2023, with BRMU1326523U2 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"Having said that, and considering everything else in the file, I DISMISS the appeal by my vote."
Case 1007253-08.2019.8.26.0438 · Court of Justice of Sao Paulo · closed 28 November 2023
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
1007253-08.2019.8.26.0438 is a patent infringement action brought by Marcelo da Silva against Diana Bioenergia Avanhandava S.a in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo. The case closed on 28 November 2023.
BRMU1326523U2. The record also lists CONSTRUCTIVE DISPOSAL APPLIED IN STRENGTHENED STRUCTURE OF HOOK TO PROPAGATE.
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: "Having said that, and considering everything else in the file, I DISMISS the appeal by my vote."
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1007253-08.2019.8.26.0438 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Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page?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