Plastek do Brasil Indústria and Comércio Ltda v. Revpack Tecnologia and Comércio de Componentes Plásticos Ltda
Declaratory judgement filed in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo and closed 22 Nov 2023, with BR102012027941B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- BR102012027941B1
- Application no.
- BR102012027941
- Case no.
- 2070583-73.2023.8.26.0000/50000
- Verdict cause
- Declaratory judgement
- 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
- cap with cutting depressant for flexible vial packages and flexible vial capped with cutting of drop
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
TAMPA COM CORTE DE GOTA PARA EMBALAGENS DE FRASCO FLEXÍVEL E FRASCO FLEXÍVEL DOTADO DE TAMPA COM CORTE DE GOTA
tampa com corte de gota para embalagens de frasco flexível e frasco flexível dotado de tampa com corte de gota. a presente invenção refere-se a uma tampa com corte gota (1) para embalagens de frasco flexível que é configurada em peça única e compreende um restritor (2) dotado de meios configurados para permitir a interrupção do fluxo de produto através de sua estrutura. os benefícios alcançados pela tampa com corte de gota (1) da presente invenção estão relacionados ao baixo custo de produção desta tampa e ao baixo impacto ambiental gerado durante sua fabricação e após o seu descarte no meio ambiente.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 23 Mar 2021
- Est. expiry
- 30 Oct 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- VICENTE ROMO RODRIGUES NETO
- Classification
- B65D47/40B65D23/06B65D43/16B65D51/04
Parties of record
Plastek do Brasil Indústria and Comércio Ltda
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Revpack Tecnologia and Comércio de Componentes Plásticos Ltda
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“No Happening so omission a be supplied, I reject the declaratory ones. It’s like voting.”
Case 2070583-73.2023.8.26.0000/50000 · Court of Justice of Sao Paulo · closed 22 November 2023
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 2070583-73.2023.8.26.0000/50000?
2070583-73.2023.8.26.0000/50000 is a patent declaratory judgement brought by Plastek do Brasil Indústria and Comércio Ltda against Revpack Tecnologia and Comércio de Componentes Plásticos Ltda in the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo. The case closed on 22 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2070583-73.2023.8.26.0000/50000?
BR102012027941B1 (“TAMPA COM CORTE DE GOTA PARA EMBALAGENS DE FRASCO FLEXÍVEL E FRASCO FLEXÍVEL DOTADO DE TAMPA COM CORTE DE GOTA”), assigned to REVPACK TECNOLOGIA E COMÉRCIO DE COMPONENTES PLÁSTICOS LTDA., currently inactive. The record also lists cap with cutting depressant for flexible vial packages and flexible vial capped with cutting of drop.
How was case 2070583-73.2023.8.26.0000/50000 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “No Happening so omission a be supplied, I reject the declaratory ones. It’s like voting.”
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2070583-73.2023.8.26.0000/50000 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.