Bianchi v. Miola Filho: Vibration Damper Patent Appeal Dismissed
ENIO BIANCHI brought an infringement action against DURVAL MIOLA FILHO over Brazilian utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1, covering an arrangement for a vibration damper for a gap-opening device. The Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed the appeal, leaving the lower court’s ruling — and its attorney fee award — intact.
São Paulo appellate court dismisses vibration damper patent appeal
The infringement action (Case No. 1014987-94.2018.8.26.0001) was brought by ENIO BIANCHI against DURVAL MIOLA FILHO before the Court of Justice of São Paulo. The dispute centres on Brazilian utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1, which protects an arrangement for a vibration damper used in a device for opening gaps. Filed in 2018, the case remained active for several years before reaching appellate resolution in June 2024.
The appellate panel denied the provision appeal (recurso) in its entirety, formally dismissing it on 25 June 2024. Under Brazilian procedural law, a denied provision appeal leaves the first-instance judgment undisturbed. The court also addressed attorney fees: while it acknowledged that dismissal of an appeal ordinarily triggers an incremental fee award under CPC Art. 85 §11, the panel chose to maintain the existing fee amount set by the lower court, capping it at the maximum permitted under CPC Art. 85 §2.
The multi-year duration from filing (2018) to appellate closure (2024) is consistent with typical patent infringement timelines in Brazilian state courts, where docket congestion and procedural complexity can extend proceedings. The public record does not disclose the specific grounds on which the lower court ruled, nor the precise financial or injunctive relief granted, leaving the commercial consequences for each party only partially visible from the appellate decision alone.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 0 days
Case closed 25 June 2024 before the Court of Justice of São Paulo
Appeal dismissed: what the São Paulo ruling means for both parties
A dismissed appeal leaves the first-instance decision intact
Under Brazilian civil procedure, when an appellate court ‘denies provision’ to a recurso, it is rejecting the appellant’s challenge without finding merit in it. The first-instance judgment remains fully operative. This is a procedural termination at the appellate level — the substantive findings of the lower court are not displaced or revisited. The appellant, MIOLA FILHO, has exhausted this avenue of challenge.
Appeal denied — lower ruling standsBianchi’s lower court win survives appellate scrutiny
For ENIO BIANCHI as patent holder, the dismissal of the appeal is a favourable result: the relief obtained at first instance is preserved. The utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1 retains its enforceability, and any injunctive or compensatory relief awarded below remains in place. The court’s decision to maintain — rather than increase — attorney fees at the CPC Art. 85 §2 cap suggests the panel exercised restraint on the quantum of fees.
Patent enforceability preservedMiola Filho’s appeal fails; further challenge options are limited
DURVAL MIOLA FILHO, as appellant, has had his appeal dismissed without a merits reversal of the lower court’s infringement finding. Brazilian procedural law does permit further recourse to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) on questions of federal law, but the threshold for admission is high. The confirmed first-instance judgment — including any liability and remedies awarded — now carries full legal force against the appellant.
Further appeals face high thresholdUtility model patents for mechanical devices remain enforceable in Brazil
This outcome signals that Brazilian courts will uphold utility model protections covering mechanical arrangements — such as vibration damper configurations — through the full appellate cycle. Competitors working with gap-opening devices or analogous vibration management systems should assess their freedom to operate against BRMU8400847Y1. The case also confirms that CPC Art. 85 fee caps apply even where appeal dismissal would otherwise trigger incremental awards.
Utility model enforcement confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ENIO BIANCHI | Individual | Individual patent holder — holder of BRMU8400847Y1, vibration damper arrangementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DURVAL MIOLA FILHO | Individual | Individual defendant accused of infringing vibration damper utility model patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The appellate panel’s language — ‘Denies Provision Appeal’ — is the standard Brazilian formulation for an appellate court finding no basis to grant the requested relief. The court’s treatment of attorney fees is notable: it declined to apply the incremental CPC Art. 85 §11 uplift that dismissal of an appeal normally triggers, instead holding fees at the first-instance maximum under Art. 85 §2. This restraint on fee quantum does not affect the substantive outcome for either party on infringement liability.
BRMU8400847Y1 — vibration damper arrangement for gap-opening devices
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model (modelo de utilidade) — a form of industrial property protection under Brazilian IP Law (Law No. 9,279/1996) intended for improvements to existing objects that result in a new functional form or arrangement. The patent protects a specific arrangement for a vibration damper incorporated into a device for opening gaps. Utility models in Brazil require novelty and inventive step (practical improvement), and carry a term of 15 years from filing. The ‘MU’ designation in the publication number confirms utility model status rather than full invention patent.
Vibration damper arrangements are commercially relevant across construction tools, drilling equipment, and gap-forming machinery — sectors where operational vibration management directly affects device longevity and user safety. A utility model covering a specific damper arrangement can create a meaningful competitive moat in niche equipment categories. With enforceability now confirmed through the São Paulo appellate court, BRMU8400847Y1 represents an active risk for competitors whose products incorporate similar vibration damping configurations in gap-opening device contexts.
Should your product team run an FTO against BRMU8400847Y1?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes devices for opening gaps — including construction gap tools, drilling accessories, or related mechanical equipment — that incorporate vibration damper arrangements, BRMU8400847Y1 warrants direct FTO attention. The patent has been actively litigated through the Brazilian appellate system and confirmed enforceable as of June 2024. Brazilian utility models protect specific arrangements and configurations, so even design-arounds that preserve function but alter form may require careful claim mapping.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can help your R&D and legal teams map the claim scope of BRMU8400847Y1 against your product configurations, identify relevant prior art that may inform invalidity arguments, and surface related Brazilian utility model filings in the vibration management and mechanical device space. Running an FTO now — before commercialisation in Brazil — is significantly more cost-effective than defending an infringement action through São Paulo state courts.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU8400847Y1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Brazilian utility model patent infringement cases
Cases involving Brazilian utility model patents for mechanical devices litigated before the Court of Justice of São Paulo, with comparable infringement and appellate dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the mechanical patent IP landscape in Brazil
Brazilian utility model patents can sustain multi-year enforcement campaigns through state appellate courts — this case illustrates the full cycle.
Brazilian utility models are viable enforcement tools for individual inventors
BIANCHI v. MIOLA FILHO demonstrates that individual patent holders can successfully assert Brazilian utility model patents (petty patents) through state court proceedings and withstand appellate challenge. For SMEs and independent inventors holding utility model registrations in Brazil, this case suggests the enforcement pathway is viable, though it requires planning for a multi-year timeline.
CPC Art. 85 fee caps shape litigation economics in Brazilian patent disputes
The appellate court’s decision to maintain — not increase — attorney fees under the CPC Art. 85 §2 maximum, even where §11 incremental fees were technically available, reflects judicial conservatism on fee awards. Parties budgeting for Brazilian patent litigation should model attorney fee outcomes at the statutory cap rather than assuming incremental appellate awards will be granted.
BIANCHI v DURVAL — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed the appeal on 25 June 2024, denying provision to the appellant DURVAL MIOLA FILHO. The first-instance infringement judgment in favour of ENIO BIANCHI was upheld. Attorney fees were maintained at the lower court amount, capped at the CPC Art. 85 §2 maximum.
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model patent protecting an arrangement for a vibration damper used in a device for opening gaps. Brazilian utility models (modelo de utilidade) protect new forms or arrangements of known objects that result in functional improvement, with a 15-year term from filing under Brazilian IP Law No. 9,279/1996.
In Brazilian civil procedure, ‘denies provision’ (nega provimento) to an appeal means the appellate court found no merit in the appellant’s challenge and declined to alter the lower court’s decision. The first-instance judgment remains fully operative. It is a standard appellate formulation indicating the appeal failed on its grounds without a procedural defect causing dismissal.
The court acknowledged that CPC Art. 85 §11 ordinarily requires an incremental fee award against an unsuccessful appellant. However, it declined to apply that uplift, instead maintaining the existing fee amount set by the first-instance court at the maximum permitted under CPC Art. 85 §2. This reflects judicial discretion to cap fees at the statutory maximum even where incremental awards might otherwise apply.
Brazilian procedural law permits a further petition to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) on questions of federal law interpretation. However, the STJ admission threshold is high — purely factual disagreements are not admissible. Whether such a petition was filed is not disclosed in the available public record. Parties monitoring this case should check STJ docket records for any subsequent filings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.