Metso Brasil v. Haver & Boecker: Vibrating Sieve Patent Appeal Dismissed
Metso Brasil asserted Brazilian patent BR102017026766B1, covering mechanical box vibrator technology for vibrating sieves, against Haver & Boecker Latinoamericana. The Court of Justice of São Paulo rejected the motions for clarification on appeal, upholding the lower court judgment and closing the case on 30 January 2024.
Vibrating sieve patent dispute resolved at appeal in São Paulo
Metso Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda filed an infringement action against Haver & Boecker Latinoamericana Maquinas Limitada at the Court of Justice of São Paulo, asserting Brazilian patent BR102017026766B1. The patent relates to a mechanical box vibrator used in vibrating sieve equipment — a technology central to mineral processing, aggregate screening, and industrial separation applications. Both parties are active in the heavy industrial machinery and screening equipment sector in Latin America.
The case closed on 30 January 2024 when the São Paulo Court of Justice rejected the motions for clarification (embargos de declaração) filed against the appellate judgment. The court found the defects alleged in the judgment under appeal did not exist, and ruled that pre-questioning was unnecessary under Article 1,025 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. The dismissal of the clarification motions effectively confirmed the appellate ruling and concluded proceedings at this level.
The resolution at the clarification stage — rather than a full merits retrial — suggests the appellate court was satisfied the lower court’s reasoning was complete and unambiguous. What remains unknown from the public record includes the outcome of the underlying infringement claim, the specific infringing acts alleged, and whether either party pursued further review before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). The case illustrates the layered appellate structure under Brazilian CPC that patent litigants must navigate.
Filing to dismissal in 0 days
Case closed 30 January 2024
Appeal dismissed: clarification motions rejected under Brazilian CPC Art. 1,025
What are embargos de declaração under Brazilian CPC?
Embargos de declaração (motions for clarification) are a procedural tool under Brazilian CPC allowing a party to request the court correct obscurity, contradiction, or omission in a judgment. They do not constitute a full appeal on the merits. The São Paulo Court rejected these motions, finding no such defects in the appellate ruling — confirming the judgment as issued was clear and complete.
Procedural clarification rejectedWhat the appeal dismissal does — and does not — resolve
Dismissal of the clarification motions confirms the appellate judgment stands as written. However, the public record does not disclose the full outcome of the underlying infringement claim. Whether Metso prevailed on infringement or Haver & Boecker succeeded in defeating the claim at first instance remains unclear. The appellate closure does not necessarily preclude further review at the STJ level if a constitutional or statutory question was preserved.
Underlying merits not publicly confirmedPre-questioning deemed unnecessary: what this means
Under Article 1,025 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, embargos de declaração are deemed to have raised the matter for pre-questioning purposes, even if rejected. The court’s explicit ruling that pre-questioning was unnecessary suggests no further extraordinary appeal on constitutional grounds was anticipated or that the threshold conditions were not met, effectively signalling closure at this appellate tier.
Further extraordinary appeal constrainedWhy vibrating sieve technology attracts IP disputes
Mechanical box vibrators and vibrating sieves are core components in mineral processing, mining, and aggregate industries. Patent protection in this space governs performance-critical variables such as vibration amplitude, bearing configuration, and structural resonance. With major OEMs and regional competitors operating in Latin America, IP enforcement in this segment is commercially significant — particularly where local manufacturing reduces importation scrutiny.
High-value industrial screening IPFull party and counsel information
| Role | Nom | Type | Détail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demandeur | Metso Brasil Indústria and Comércio Ltda | Entreprise | Heavy industrial machinery and mineral processing equipment company — holder of BR102017026766B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Défendeur | Haver & Boecker Latinoamericana Maquinas Limitada | Entreprise | Brazilian subsidiary of Haver & Boecker, active in industrial screening and vibrating equipment.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Juge en chef | Court of Justice of Sao Paulo — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s rejection of the embargos de declaração — citing no defects in the appellate judgment and deeming pre-questioning unnecessary under Article 1,025 CPC — represents a procedural finalisation of the appeal rather than a new merits determination. This language is typical of Brazilian appellate courts confirming a lower ruling is internally consistent. For Metso, this closure preserves whatever outcome was reached below; for Haver & Boecker, avenues for further challenge at this level are effectively exhausted.
BR102017026766B1 — Mechanical Box Vibrator for Vibrating Sieves
BR102017026766B1 is a Brazilian granted patent covering a mechanical box vibrator designed for use in vibrating sieve systems. This technology category sits at the intersection of mechanical engineering and mineral processing: vibrator units generate the oscillatory forces necessary to classify, sort, or dewater bulk materials across aggregate, mining, and recycling applications. The application number prefix ‘BR1020170’ places filing in 2017, with the ‘B1’ designation indicating a granted patent following substantive examination by the INPI (Brazil’s national IP office).
For competitors in the Latin American screening equipment market, this patent represents a meaningful enforcement asset. Metso — a globally significant minerals processing OEM — holds IP across multiple equipment categories, and the decision to litigate through São Paulo’s appellate courts signals it treats BR102017026766B1 as commercially valuable. Any manufacturer, assembler, or importer of vibrating sieve drive components in Brazil should assess whether their product configurations fall within the claims of this patent, particularly given the breadth vibrator mechanism patents can achieve.
Should your screening equipment carry an FTO against BR102017026766B1?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, imports, or integrates mechanical box vibrators or vibrating sieve assemblies for sale in Brazil or other MERCOSUR markets, this patent demands attention. Metso’s enforcement action against Haver & Boecker — a well-resourced regional competitor — demonstrates that BR102017026766B1 is not a dormant filing. Product teams launching or updating vibrating sieve equipment lines in Latin America should treat an FTO analysis of this patent as a prerequisite, not an afterthought.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim structure of BR102017026766B1 against your product specifications, flag relevant prior art, and identify design-around opportunities — all within a single workflow. Set up claim monitoring to receive alerts if Metso files continuation applications or asserts equivalent patents in other jurisdictions. For R&D teams working on vibrator mechanism iterations, Eureka’s landscape analysis can surface the white space around Metso’s existing claim footprint before you commit to a product architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BR102017026766B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent disputes in vibrating equipment and mineral processing
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for industrial screening IP in Latin America
This dispute highlights the active enforcement of mechanical process patents in Brazil’s mining and aggregate equipment sector.
Brazil is an active forum for industrial equipment patent enforcement
The São Paulo Court of Justice regularly handles patent infringement disputes in the heavy machinery and mineral processing sectors. Companies operating or manufacturing screening equipment in Brazil should treat local patent registrations as credible enforcement risks, not merely defensive filings. Metso’s willingness to pursue appeal confirms an active enforcement posture.
Clarification motions can extend appellate timelines significantly
The use of embargos de declaração as a final appellate step demonstrates how Brazilian CPC procedure can extend dispute resolution beyond the primary appeal. IP litigants should budget for this additional layer when planning enforcement or defence timelines in Brazil — closure is not guaranteed at the first appellate decision.
Metso v Haver — key questions answered
The case closed on 30 January 2024 when the Court of Justice of São Paulo rejected motions for clarification (embargos de declaração) filed against the appellate judgment. The court found no defects in the ruling and deemed pre-questioning unnecessary under Article 1,025 of the Brazilian CPC, confirming the appellate decision stands.
BR102017026766B1 is a Brazilian granted patent covering a mechanical box vibrator for vibrating sieves — equipment used to classify or separate bulk materials in mining, aggregate, and industrial processing applications. The patent was the basis of Metso Brasil’s infringement action against Haver & Boecker Latinoamericana.
An embargo de declaração (motion for clarification) under Brazilian CPC allows a party to ask a court to correct obscurity, contradiction, or omission in a judgment. In this case, one or both parties filed such motions against the appellate ruling. The São Paulo court rejected them, finding the judgment was clear and complete and that no defects existed.
Not necessarily. The dismissal of the clarification motions confirms the appellate judgment stands as issued, but the public record does not disclose the full outcome of the underlying infringement claim. Whether Metso prevailed on infringement at first instance, or whether Haver & Boecker successfully defended, is not confirmed by the available case data.
Yes, this is advisable. Metso’s active enforcement of BR102017026766B1 through Brazil’s appellate courts signals it is a commercially prioritised asset. Manufacturers, importers, or integrators of mechanical box vibrators or vibrating sieve drive systems operating in Brazil or MERCOSUR markets should conduct a claim-level freedom-to-operate analysis to assess infringement exposure before product launch or market entry.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.