TAG Distribuição v. Albuquerque: Interlocutory Appeal Dismissed by São Paulo Court
TAG Distribuição e Comercialização de Importados filed an invalidity/cancellation action against Marcos Antônio Guedes de Albuquerque over Brazilian patent BR102013032447B1, covering a medicinal formulation for human and veterinary use. The Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed the interlocutory appeal on 24 October 2024, leaving the underlying invalidity proceedings to continue.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 0 days
Case closed 24 October 2024; filing date not available in public record
Appeal dismissed: what the São Paulo ruling means for both parties
Interlocutory appeal dismissed without merits adjudication
An interlocutory appeal (agravo) targets an interim ruling rather than a final judgment. When such an appeal is dismissed, the appellate court declines to review the challenged procedural or interlocutory decision — typically on procedural admissibility grounds. No substantive ruling on patent validity is issued. The underlying invalidity/cancellation action at first instance is unaffected and is expected to continue.
Procedural dismissalPatentee retains procedural position pending full invalidity review
The dismissal of TAG Distribuição’s interlocutory appeal suggests the appellate court found the interim challenge procedurally deficient or inadmissible at this stage. For patent holder Marcos Antônio Guedes de Albuquerque, BR102013032447B1 remains formally in force and the patentee’s procedural position is preserved — though the underlying invalidity action is not yet resolved.
Patent survives this stageTAG Distribuição’s interim appeal fails; invalidity action continues
TAG Distribuição was unable to obtain appellate relief at the interlocutory stage. The dismissal does not prejudge the merits of the invalidity/cancellation claim itself. The challenger retains the ability to pursue its invalidity arguments through the ordinary course of the first-instance proceedings, and may appeal a final judgment through the appropriate channels once available.
Challenger may proceed on meritsMedicinal formulation patent remains active during ongoing invalidity proceedings
For companies operating in the Brazilian pharmaceutical and veterinary formulation sector, BR102013032447B1 remains enforceable pending the outcome of the invalidity action. Third parties should monitor the first-instance proceedings closely. A successful invalidity finding at that level would open the formulation to competition; failure would reinforce the patent’s enforceability in Brazil’s market.
Monitor first-instance proceedingsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TAG DISTRIBUIÇÃO AND COMERCIALIZAÇÃO DE IMPORTADOS EM GERAL LTDA | Individual | Brazilian import distributor — challenger of BR102013032447B1 medicinal formulation patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MARCOS ANTÔNIO GUEDES DE ALBUQUERQUE | Individual | Individual patent holder of BR102013032447B1 — medicinal formulation for human and veterinary useSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The ruling — ‘The interlocutory appeal is dismissed’ — reflects a procedural termination at the appellate stage with no substantive finding on the validity of BR102013032447B1. Dismissal of an interlocutory appeal (agravo) in Brazilian civil procedure typically indicates the appeal failed an admissibility threshold, such as improper form, timing, or subject matter. This outcome does not constitute a finding in favour of either party on the merits of the invalidity/cancellation action, which is understood to remain pending at first instance.
BR102013032447B1 — Medicinal Formulation for Human and Veterinary Use
BR102013032447B1 is a Brazilian patent covering a medicinal formulation indicated for both human and veterinary use. The application number suggests a filing date in late 2013 under INPI’s BR 10 2013 series, placing it within Brazil’s standard utility patent framework. The ‘B1’ suffix confirms the patent was granted following substantive examination by INPI. The dual-use scope — human and veterinary — suggests the claimed formulation may have active ingredients or delivery mechanisms applicable across species, which broadens both its commercial relevance and its potential exposure to invalidity challenges.
A granted formulation patent with dual human-veterinary claims represents a strategically significant asset in Brazil’s pharmaceutical and agri-health sectors. Competitors seeking to introduce equivalent formulations must either design around the claims or successfully invalidate the patent. The existence of an invalidity/cancellation action filed by a distributor — rather than a manufacturer — suggests the patent may be creating commercial friction in the import or distribution channel, potentially affecting product sourcing or market access for multiple downstream operators.
Should you run an FTO against BR102013032447B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or commercialising medicinal formulations for human or veterinary use in Brazil should treat BR102013032447B1 as a live freedom-to-operate consideration. The patent is presumptively valid while the invalidity action is unresolved. Distributors, contract manufacturers, and formulators operating in Brazil’s pharmaceutical or veterinary product market are the most directly exposed. The TAG v. Albuquerque proceedings indicate the patent is already being enforced or contested in the commercial channel.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of BR102013032447B1 against your product formulation, flag prosecution history file wrapper data from INPI, and surface any related Brazilian, PCT, or foreign family members that may extend protection. Eureka can also monitor the status of the underlying invalidity action in real time, ensuring your legal and R&D teams are alerted to any change in the patent’s enforceability status before it affects your commercial operations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BR102013032447B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Medicinal Formulation Patent Invalidity Cases at Brazilian Courts
Explore comparable invalidity and cancellation actions involving pharmaceutical and veterinary formulation patents litigated before Brazilian state courts and INPI.
What this case signals for the Brazilian pharmaceutical patent IP landscape
Interlocutory challenges to medicinal formulation patents in Brazil face a high procedural bar at the Court of Justice of São Paulo.
Interlocutory appeals are a high-risk, low-certainty tactic in Brazilian IP disputes
The dismissal of TAG Distribuição’s agravo without merits review is consistent with Brazilian appellate courts applying strict admissibility filters to interlocutory challenges. IP challengers targeting pharmaceutical patents in São Paulo state courts should carefully assess procedural grounds before filing interim appeals, as a failed agravo may delay the overall litigation strategy.
BR102013032447B1 remains a live enforcement risk for competitors in this formulation space
Until the invalidity/cancellation action is resolved at first instance, the patent covering the medicinal formulation for human and veterinary use retains its legal presumption of validity. Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing a similar formulation in Brazil should conduct an FTO assessment against this patent and track the ongoing proceedings.
LTDA v MARCOS — key questions answered
Dismissal of the interlocutory appeal (agravo) means the Court of Justice of São Paulo declined to review the challenged interim ruling on procedural or admissibility grounds. No merits determination on the validity of BR102013032447B1 was issued. The underlying invalidity/cancellation action at first instance is understood to remain pending and unaffected by this appellate outcome.
Yes, BR102013032447B1 retains its legal presumption of validity following the dismissal of TAG Distribuição’s interlocutory appeal. The dismissal was procedural and did not adjudicate the merits of the invalidity claim. The patent remains enforceable in Brazil until a first-instance court or INPI issues a substantive invalidity or cancellation ruling.
Under Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9.279/1996), patent invalidity can be pursued administratively before INPI or judicially before the federal courts. A cancellation action may also be brought before state civil courts by interested parties. These proceedings examine whether the patent met patentability requirements — novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability — at the time of filing.
The ‘BR 10 2013’ prefix indicates this is a standard Brazilian utility patent application filed in 2013. The ‘B1’ grant suffix confirms INPI completed substantive examination and granted the patent. Applications from this period are subject to INPI’s examination backlog history, and the grant date may be significantly later than the filing date — which can affect patent term calculations under Brazilian law.
The plaintiff is TAG Distribuição e Comercialização de Importados em Geral Ltda, a Brazilian import distribution company that initiated the invalidity/cancellation action. The defendant is Marcos Antônio Guedes de Albuquerque, the individual holder of patent BR102013032447B1 covering a medicinal formulation for human and veterinary use. The case was heard by the Court of Justice of São Paulo.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.