Post by xyz3800 on Feb 28, 2024 5:42:38 GMT
If a final decision is contradicted by a subsequent decision, the original judgment must be reviewed. With this understanding, the 9th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo, by majority, extinguished an execution of damages against a company for having copied a patented product. The dispute took place between two companies that manufacture plastic packaging. One of them filed a search and seizure and loss and damage action to prevent the manufacture and sale of a set of overlapping lunch boxes by another company in the sector. The company requested compensation for the sale of the parts, arguing that it had a registered patent on the product in question. The requests were judged valid by a decision confirmed in the second instance, with final and unappealable judgment, and action is underway to enforce the value of the losses and damages, set at around R$ 186 thousand, with seizure of assets.
But the company that supposedly copied the invention had also filed a patent cancellation action, which was judged valid by the Federal Court much later. As a result, the company accused of plagiarism filed a declaratory action for the nullity of the judicial legal act, on which the executed sentence was based, asking for the end of its effects. The case's rapporteur, judge Costa Netto, understood that there was no res judicata, as the sentence Exit Mobile Number List did not address the merits of the issue regarding nullity. He also understood that "the action for nullity of the aforementioned patent was a truly prejudicial issue influencing the merits of the punitive action (obligation not to do so combined with compensation)". "Apart from this, it is important to remember that, in addition to the procedural mechanisms, res judicata can also be removed by its relativization to, in certain cases, avoid the perpetuation of harmful situations under the procedural seal", stated Costa Netto, specialist in Copyright Law.
Second substitute judge Angela Lopes cast a dissenting vote as she understood that this possibility would, in itself, bring an "insurmountable affront to legal certainty" and also that the decision became final almost nine years ago. "Not even a declaration of unconstitutionality, through concentrated control, has the power to reach previous decisions made to the contrary, if the deadline for filing an appeal or filing for termination has expired. I believe that the declaration of nullity of the patent registration does not affect decisions which the legal system itself considered immutable", said the judge. "Although it is recognized that the continuity of the executive process generates an apparent situation of injustice, I believe that this is not enough to revoke the executive title and deconstitute the effectiveness of the res judicata, since, let me repeat, the title that is now executed does not suffer from any formal defect", concluded her dissent Angela Lopes, accompanied by second-degree judge José Aparício Coelho.
But the company that supposedly copied the invention had also filed a patent cancellation action, which was judged valid by the Federal Court much later. As a result, the company accused of plagiarism filed a declaratory action for the nullity of the judicial legal act, on which the executed sentence was based, asking for the end of its effects. The case's rapporteur, judge Costa Netto, understood that there was no res judicata, as the sentence Exit Mobile Number List did not address the merits of the issue regarding nullity. He also understood that "the action for nullity of the aforementioned patent was a truly prejudicial issue influencing the merits of the punitive action (obligation not to do so combined with compensation)". "Apart from this, it is important to remember that, in addition to the procedural mechanisms, res judicata can also be removed by its relativization to, in certain cases, avoid the perpetuation of harmful situations under the procedural seal", stated Costa Netto, specialist in Copyright Law.
Second substitute judge Angela Lopes cast a dissenting vote as she understood that this possibility would, in itself, bring an "insurmountable affront to legal certainty" and also that the decision became final almost nine years ago. "Not even a declaration of unconstitutionality, through concentrated control, has the power to reach previous decisions made to the contrary, if the deadline for filing an appeal or filing for termination has expired. I believe that the declaration of nullity of the patent registration does not affect decisions which the legal system itself considered immutable", said the judge. "Although it is recognized that the continuity of the executive process generates an apparent situation of injustice, I believe that this is not enough to revoke the executive title and deconstitute the effectiveness of the res judicata, since, let me repeat, the title that is now executed does not suffer from any formal defect", concluded her dissent Angela Lopes, accompanied by second-degree judge José Aparício Coelho.