ENIO BIANCHI ME v. Luiz Carlos Bezerra da Silva — Appeal Dismissed
ENIO BIANCHI ME brought proceedings before the Court of Justice of São Paulo asserting Brazilian utility model BRMU8400847U, which covers adjustable opening mechanisms for esquadrias, doors, thick partition walls, terraces, and similar structures. The appellate panel declined to hear the appeal, terminating the matter at this court level without a merits ruling.
São Paulo appellate panel declines to hear esquadria device dispute
ENIO BIANCHI ME, a Brazilian micro-enterprise, initiated proceedings under case number 2320895-35.2024.8.26.0000 before the Court of Justice of São Paulo against LUIZ CARLOS BEZERRA DA SILVA. The dispute centres on Brazilian utility model BRMU8400847U, which protects a constructive arrangement in elements of a device for the regulable opening of esquadrias, doors, thick partition walls, terraces, and similar structures — a niche but commercially relevant segment of the Brazilian construction hardware sector.
The case was classified as an ‘Other Action’ and reached the appellate chamber of the Court of Justice of São Paulo. The presiding judge issued a single-vote ruling declining to hear the appeal, with the Basis of Termination recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed.’ This procedural outcome means no appellate merits ruling was issued on the underlying patent or infringement claims, leaving the substance of the dispute unresolved at this level.
Without a filing date in the public record, the full procedural timeline cannot be assessed. The dismissal of the appeal — rather than a decision on the merits — suggests the matter may have failed to satisfy admissibility requirements at the appellate stage, which is consistent with procedural filters applied by Brazilian state courts of justice. What drove the original dispute and whether either party pursues further proceedings remains unknown from the available record.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 0 days
Case closed 6 June 2025; filing date not available in public record
Appeal dismissed: what the São Paulo ruling means for both parties
Dismissal without merits: appeal not heard
The judge’s statement — ‘I am not aware of the appeal’ — is the Brazilian appellate formulation for declining to admit or process an appeal. This is a procedural outcome, not a substantive ruling on the patent’s validity, scope, or alleged infringement. The underlying merits of the BRMU8400847U dispute were not adjudicated at this appellate stage.
Procedural dismissalENIO BIANCHI ME: appellate route closed at this level
If ENIO BIANCHI ME was the appellant, the dismissal forecloses relief at this appellate tier. The utility model BRMU8400847U remains in force as a registered right, but no appellate endorsement of the plaintiff’s infringement position was obtained. Future enforcement would require fresh proceedings or a successful admissibility argument at a higher tribunal, if applicable.
No appellate relief grantedLuiz Carlos Bezerra da Silva: proceedings end without adverse ruling
The dismissal benefits the respondent insofar as no appellate order was issued against them. However, because the dismissal is procedural rather than on the merits, it does not constitute a judicial finding that the respondent’s conduct was lawful or that the patent is invalid. The risk of a fresh action based on the same utility model cannot be ruled out from the public record.
No merits finding for respondentUtility model BRMU8400847U: enforcement posture uncertain
Brazilian utility models (modelos de utilidade) provide a ten-year enforceable right from grant. A procedural appellate dismissal does not invalidate the right or signal judicial weakness in the underlying patent. Competitors and manufacturers in the esquadria and construction hardware segment should note that BRMU8400847U remains a live asset whose enforceability was not tested on the merits in this proceeding.
Utility model remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ENIO BIANCHI ME | Individual | Brazilian micro-enterprise — holder of utility model BRMU8400847USearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LUIZ CARLOS BEZERRA DA SILVA | Individual | Individual respondent in São Paulo appellate proceedings over esquadria opening deviceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The panel’s ruling — ‘I am not aware of the appeal’ — reflects the Brazilian procedural formula for non-admission of an appellate submission. This language indicates the court declined to examine the merits of the underlying dispute, which may have involved infringement of utility model BRMU8400847U. Neither party received a substantive ruling on patent validity, claim scope, or liability. The dismissal is consistent with failure to meet formal admissibility criteria at the Court of Justice of São Paulo rather than a judicial assessment of the patent’s strength or the defendant’s conduct.
BRMU8400847U — Regulable Opening Device for Esquadrias and Doors
BRMU8400847U is a Brazilian utility model (modelo de utilidade) protecting a constructive arrangement in elements of a device for the regulable opening of esquadrias, doors, thick partition walls, terraces, and similar structures. Brazilian utility models protect functional improvements to existing objects and are granted by INPI, Brazil’s national patent office. They carry a statutory protection term of ten years from grant, making the remaining enforceable life of this model a key variable for market participants.
Adjustable opening and ventilation hardware for esquadrias — a category encompassing window frames, shutters, louvres, and related architectural elements — represents a commercially active niche in the Brazilian civil construction and renovation market. A utility model covering a regulable opening mechanism could affect product designs across multiple hardware categories. Competitors, OEM suppliers, and construction product distributors operating in Brazil should assess whether their current or planned product lines fall within the claim scope of BRMU8400847U, particularly given that enforcement proceedings have already been initiated.
Should you run an FTO against BRMU8400847U?
Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of adjustable opening devices for doors, windows, esquadrias, or partition wall hardware sold in the Brazilian market should treat BRMU8400847U as a live enforcement risk. The utility model holder has demonstrated willingness to litigate, and the appellate dismissal in this case was procedural — not a finding of non-infringement or invalidity. Product teams developing regulable hinge, latch, or frame adjustment mechanisms for the Brazilian civil construction sector should commission a focused FTO review against this model and related INPI filings before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map BRMU8400847U’s claim language against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any related utility model or patent filings by ENIO BIANCHI ME or competitors in the esquadria hardware class at INPI. Eureka can also flag expiry dates and prosecution status, enabling your legal and engineering teams to make informed clearance decisions without manual INPI database searches.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU8400847U to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar construction hardware utility model cases at Brazilian courts
Cases involving Brazilian utility models for construction hardware and adjustable architectural devices litigated before the Court of Justice of São Paulo and INPI.
What this case signals for the construction hardware IP landscape in Brazil
A procedural appellate dismissal at the Court of Justice of São Paulo leaves the underlying utility model enforcement question open.
Procedural dismissals do not extinguish Brazilian utility model rights
BRMU8400847U remains a registered utility model despite the appellate dismissal. Parties operating in the esquadria, door hardware, and partition systems market should not treat this outcome as a clearance signal. The patent holder retains the right to bring fresh enforcement action within the statutory term.
Admissibility thresholds at Brazilian state courts of justice are material
The panel’s single-vote non-admission suggests the appeal may have failed procedural requirements — such as timeliness, standing, or formal adequacy — rather than failing on substance. IP practitioners filing appeals at São Paulo’s TJSP should rigorously audit admissibility requirements before escalating construction hardware disputes.
ME v LUIZ — key questions answered
This phrase is the Brazilian appellate formulation for non-admission of an appeal. The Court of Justice of São Paulo declined to process the appeal on procedural grounds, issuing no ruling on the merits of the BRMU8400847U patent dispute. Neither infringement nor validity was adjudicated.
Yes, the procedural dismissal of the appeal does not affect the registered status of BRMU8400847U at INPI. Brazilian utility models remain enforceable until their statutory ten-year term expires or INPI formally cancels them. Manufacturers in the esquadria and door hardware segment should not treat this outcome as a clearance.
A Brazilian utility model protects functional improvements to the shape or structure of an existing object. It is granted by INPI and carries a ten-year protection term from grant, compared to twenty years for invention patents. The inventive step threshold is generally lower, making utility models common in mechanical and construction hardware categories such as the esquadria opening device at issue here.
The case was heard by the Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJSP), Brazil’s state appellate court for São Paulo. TJSP handles appeals from first-instance decisions in civil, commercial, and IP matters arising within São Paulo state. Utility model infringement claims may be heard at state or federal level depending on the relief sought.
A procedural appeal dismissal typically does not bar fresh proceedings based on the same cause of action, particularly where dismissal was for formal rather than substantive reasons. Whether ENIO BIANCHI ME can re-litigate depends on Brazilian procedural rules on res judicata and the specific grounds for non-admission — neither of which are fully disclosed in the public record available for this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.