Constructive Device Patent Infringement Case: ENIO BIANCHI ME v. SACADA GLASS: Court of Justice of São Paulo Rules Against Appeal in Brazilian Utility Model Infringement Dispute

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case Name ENIO BIANCHI ME v. SACADA GLASS
Case Number 1004134-66.2018.8.26.0020
Court Court of Justice of São Paulo
Duration 2018 – Mar 2026 7 years 3 months
Outcome Plaintiff Win – Appeal Denied
Patents at Issue
Accused Products Constructive arrangement in device elements for adjustable opening of frames, doors, partitions, terraces and the like

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

Brazilian micro-enterprise holding utility model patent BRMU8400847U, actively enforcing IP rights in construction hardware.

🛡️ Defendant

Brazilian architectural glass and framing company, whose adjustable opening systems allegedly incorporated the patented constructive arrangement.

Patents at Issue

This case centered on a key utility model patent protecting mechanical innovation in architectural hardware:

  • BRMU8400847U — Constructive arrangement in device elements for adjustable opening of frames, doors, partitions, terraces and the like.
🔍

Developing architectural hardware for Brazil?

Check if your design might infringe this or related utility model patents.

Run FTO Check →

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Court of Justice of São Paulo **voted to deny the appeal** filed by SACADA GLASS, affirming the position of patent holder ENIO BIANCHI ME in this infringement action. The case is now **closed** as of March 11, 2026, reinforcing the enforceability of utility model patents in Brazil.

Key Legal Issues

The appellate panel’s decision to deny the appeal suggests that arguments raised by SACADA GLASS challenging infringement findings, the validity of the utility model, or procedural grounds were insufficient to overcome the lower tribunal’s determinations. This implies the court found the plaintiff’s infringement claim well-substantiated and the utility model BRMU8400847U valid and enforceable.

✍️

Filing a utility model patent in Brazil?

Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.

Try Patent Drafting →

Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP

From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.

⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis

This case highlights critical IP risks in Brazilian architectural hardware design. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand This Case’s Impact

Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation in Brazil.

  • View all related utility model patents in this technology space
  • See which companies are most active in Brazilian mechanical device patents
  • Understand local claim construction patterns
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
High Risk Area

Adjustable frame opening devices in Brazil

📋
Utility Model Patents

Key for mechanical innovations in Brazil

Design-Around Options

Often available for utility model claims

✅ Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys

Brazilian utility model patents are enforceable at the appellate level and provide meaningful protection for mechanical innovations in construction hardware.

Search related Brazilian case law →

Claim scope mapping to commercially active product categories is critical for successful utility model enforcement in Brazil.

Explore Brazilian precedents →

For R&D Teams

Adjustable frame, partition, and terrace hardware designs require Brazilian utility model clearance before market launch.

Start FTO analysis for my product →

Document design evolution thoroughly and conduct FTO analysis before finalizing product aesthetics, especially for the Brazilian market.

Try AI patent drafting →

Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?

Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.