Tamboré Alumínio v. Enio Bianchi — Appeal Granted, Infringement Not Proven
Tamboré Alumínio Ltda brought a patent infringement claim against Enio Bianchi ME before the Court of Justice of São Paulo, asserting utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1 covering an arrangement for a vibration damper used in gap-opening devices. The appellate court found no proof of infringement and, notably, the patent expired during the proceedings — rendering the injunction request moot.
Appellate reversal in a Brazilian utility model vibration damper dispute
Tamboré Alumínio Ltda, a Brazilian aluminium products company, initiated proceedings against Enio Bianchi ME (Case No. 1033263-87.2016.8.26.0602) before the Court of Justice of São Paulo. The claim centred on alleged infringement of utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1, which protects an arrangement for a vibration damper incorporated into a device for opening gaps. The case proceeded through at least two judicial levels before closing on 24 January 2024.
The appellate court granted the defendant’s appeal in full, overturning the first-instance decision. The court found that Tamboré Alumínio had failed to provide sufficient proof of infringement of the utility model patent. Separately, the court noted that the patent itself had expired during the course of the proceedings, rendering the plaintiff’s request for an injunction to restrain further infringement superveningly moot — a significant procedural finding that effectively eliminated the prospective relief sought.
The combination of a failed evidentiary showing and mid-litigation patent expiry is a commercially significant outcome: even if infringement had been demonstrated, the expiry would have curtailed ongoing relief. What remains unknown from the public record is the precise basis of the first-instance ruling, the identity of the specific competing product alleged to infringe, and whether any damages for past infringement were pursued independently of the injunctive claim.
Filing to settlement in 0 days
Closed 24 January 2024 — duration not recorded in public filing
Appeal granted — infringement unproven and patent expired during litigation
Plaintiff failed to prove infringement on the evidence
The appellate court’s core finding was that Tamboré Alumínio did not discharge its evidentiary burden to demonstrate that Enio Bianchi’s product infringed the claims of BRMU8400847Y1. In Brazilian utility model litigation, the patent holder bears the burden of proving that the defendant’s arrangement falls within the scope of the protected claims. The absence of sufficient proof — rather than a finding of non-infringement per se — drove the outcome.
Burden of proof on patent holderPatent expired mid-litigation, mooting injunctive relief
Brazilian utility models (modelos de utilidade) carry a maximum 15-year term from filing, or 7 years from grant, whichever is longer. BRMU8400847Y1 lapsed during the proceedings. The court treated the injunction request as superveningly without object — a recognised doctrine in Brazilian civil procedure. This meant even a successful infringement finding would not have supported an ongoing restraining order, significantly reducing the practical value of the claim.
Supervening mootness appliedFirst-instance ruling reversed on full appeal
The appellate court granted the appeal in its entirety (‘total GRANTING of the appeal’), suggesting the lower court had found in favour of the plaintiff or had declined to dismiss the claim outright. A full reversal at the Court of Justice of São Paulo level is consistent with a fresh merits assessment of the evidence rather than a narrow procedural correction, though the precise grounds of the first-instance decision are not disclosed in the available record.
Full reversal by appellate courtDeclaratory action framing shaped available remedies
The case was classified as a declaratory judgement action (ação declaratória), a procedural vehicle used in Brazil to establish the existence, scope, or absence of a legal relationship. Pursuing infringement through this route, rather than a purely compensatory action, suggests the plaintiff’s primary objective may have been to obtain a judicial declaration and injunctive relief rather than monetary damages — a strategy whose value diminished as the patent approached and passed expiry.
Declaratory — not purely compensatoryFull party and counsel information
| Role | Nom | Type | Détail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demandeur | TAMBORÉ ALUMÍNIO LTDA | Entreprise | Brazilian aluminium products manufacturer — holder of BRMU8400847Y1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Défendeur | ENIO BIANCHI ME | Entreprise | Enio Bianchi ME — Brazilian micro-enterprise, respondent in utility model disputeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Juge en chef | Court of Justice of Sao Paulo — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The appellate court’s ruling operates on two independent grounds: first, the evidentiary failure — no proof of infringement was established, so the claim fails on the merits; second, the supervening mootness of the injunction due to patent expiry. For Tamboré Alumínio, this is a complete defeat: the infringement allegation stands unvalidated and prospective relief is permanently unavailable. For Enio Bianchi, the ruling provides full protection from the asserted claims, though it does not constitute a declaration of non-infringement that could be enforced as a positive right.
BRMU8400847Y1 — vibration damper arrangement for gap-opening devices
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model patent protecting an arrangement for a vibration damper incorporated into a device used for opening gaps. Utility models in Brazil (registered under INPI’s modelo de utilidade regime) protect functional improvements to existing objects and carry a shorter examination and protection cycle than invention patents. The ‘BRMU’ prefix and the ‘Y1’ grant designation confirm this is a registered utility model. The patent is confirmed as expired, having lapsed during the course of proceedings filed in 2016, suggesting an original filing date consistent with a term ending before or around 2024.
Despite its expiry, BRMU8400847Y1 is commercially relevant as a prior art reference and as an indicator of Tamboré Alumínio’s historical IP strategy in the aluminium accessories and gap-opening hardware segment. Competitors and new entrants in vibration damping components for construction or industrial gap systems should assess whether the now-expired claims define a design space that is fully open or whether related INPI filings by the same assignee could impose continuing restrictions. The litigation itself signals that Tamboré Alumínio was willing to assert utility model rights defensively — a behaviour pattern worth tracking.
Should you run an FTO check against BRMU8400847Y1?
BRMU8400847Y1 has expired, which means the specific arrangement it claimed is no longer protected and cannot form the basis of a new infringement action. However, product and engineering teams active in vibration damper components, gap-opening devices, or related aluminium construction accessories in Brazil should still review the claims: the expired patent defines prior art that constrains the validity of any successor filing by Tamboré Alumínio or third parties attempting to claim overlapping subject matter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can identify the full INPI portfolio of Tamboré Alumínio, flag any continuation or related filings that may extend protection into overlapping technical territory, and map the expired claims against your product’s feature set. Setting a claim monitoring alert for assignee activity in the vibration damping and gap-opening device classification ensures you are notified if new utility model or invention patent applications are filed in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU8400847Y1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Brazilian utility model infringement cases — vibration and mechanical hardware
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 utility model IP enforcement in Brazil
Patent holders asserting utility models in Brazilian courts face compounding risks when litigation timelines approach or exceed remaining patent life.
File early and monitor patent expiry against expected litigation duration
This case illustrates a structural risk in Brazilian IP enforcement: proceedings filed in 2016 closed in 2024 — a span that can exhaust a utility model’s remaining term. Patent holders should model litigation duration against patent expiry at the outset and consider whether injunctive relief will still be available by the time an appellate decision is rendered.
Evidentiary preparation is decisive — technical proof cannot be improvised
The appellate court’s rejection of the infringement claim rested on insufficient proof, not an invalidity finding. This suggests the patent itself survived scrutiny. Rights holders must invest in robust technical comparisons — ideally expert reports mapping accused products to specific utility model claims — before or at filing, not during litigation.
TAMBORÉ v ENIO — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo granted the defendant’s appeal in full, reversing the first-instance decision. The appellate court found that Tamboré Alumínio failed to prove infringement of utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1. The court also noted the patent had expired during proceedings, rendering the injunction request moot. The case closed on 24 January 2024.
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model patent covering an arrangement for a vibration damper for a device for opening gaps. The patent is confirmed as expired — it lapsed during the course of proceedings that began in 2016. As a result, the protected arrangement is no longer under exclusivity and can no longer be the subject of new infringement claims.
Under Brazilian civil procedure, a claim or remedy becomes superveningly without object (perda superveniente do objeto) when the factual or legal basis for that relief ceases to exist after filing. In this case, the expiry of BRMU8400847Y1 during litigation meant the injunction to restrain further infringement lost its legal foundation — the court cannot prohibit acts under a patent that no longer confers exclusive rights.
The appellate court found that Tamboré Alumínio did not provide sufficient proof that Enio Bianchi’s product infringed the claims of BRMU8400847Y1. The court’s reasoning focused on the absence of evidence rather than a finding that the patent was invalid. The full reversal suggests the evidentiary record presented at first instance was not adequate to sustain an infringement finding on appeal.
Expiry of BRMU8400847Y1 means the specific vibration damper arrangement it claimed enters the public domain and is freely usable. Competitors and product developers in gap-opening hardware or vibration damping components in Brazil should nonetheless conduct an FTO check on Tamboré Alumínio’s broader INPI portfolio to identify any related active filings that may cover overlapping features before relying on the expired patent’s claims as a design guide.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.