Enio Bianchi v. Artemassa: Appeal Granted on Vibration Damper Patent
Individual inventor Enio Bianchi pursued a patent infringement action against Artemassa Produtos para Vidraçaria Ltda over BRMU8400847Y1, a utility model covering a vibration damper arrangement for gap-opening devices. The Court of Justice of São Paulo granted the appeal, with monetary correction and default interest of 1% per month applied to procedural costs from the date of final judgment.
São Paulo appeal turns on a vibration damper utility model
Enio Bianchi, an individual inventor, brought an infringement action against Artemassa Produtos para Vidraçaria Ltda, a Brazilian glazing-products supplier, asserting rights under utility model BRMU8400847Y1. The patent covers an arrangement for a vibration damper used in devices designed to open gaps — a component relevant to the glass and glazing hardware sector. The case was heard before the Court of Justice of São Paulo under case number 1011992-24.2018.8.26.0223, filed in 2018 and closed on 5 June 2024.
On appeal, the Court of Justice of São Paulo granted the appeal in favour of Bianchi. The ruling specified that procedural costs and expenses would attract monetary correction under the court’s official TJSP table from the date of each advance payment, together with default interest of 1% per month from the date of the final and unappealable judgment. Attorney fees were similarly subject to monetary correction from the date of filing. The allowance of the appeal suggests the lower instance’s resolution was revised to Bianchi’s benefit, though the precise lower-court disposition is not detailed in the public record.
The case spanned from 2018 filing to a June 2024 closure — a duration consistent with the broader backlog challenges in Brazilian state court IP proceedings. The detailed cost and interest provisions in the verdict are characteristic of Brazilian civil procedure, where monetary correction against inflation is standard. What drove the appellate reversal — whether claim construction, evidentiary findings, or procedural grounds — is not specified in the available record, leaving the substantive merits analysis incomplete from publicly accessible data.
Filing to Appeal Granted in 0 days
Case closed June 2024 before the Court of Justice of São Paulo
São Paulo Court of Justice grants appeal: what the ruling means for both parties
What ‘appeal granted’ means in Brazilian civil procedure
Under Brazilian civil procedure (CPC/2015), granting an appeal (dar provimento ao recurso) means the appellate panel found reversible error in the lower court’s decision and substituted or materially altered it. This is distinct from a partial grant. Here, the Court of Justice of São Paulo allowed the appeal in full, suggesting the original infringement claim was upheld at appellate level in Bianchi’s favour. The detailed cost provisions reinforce that a substantive disposition, not merely a procedural remand, was issued.
Appeal allowed — lower decision revisedBianchi secures appellate vindication for utility model rights
The granted appeal suggests the Court accepted Bianchi’s infringement arguments concerning BRMU8400847Y1. The patent’s enforceability is bolstered by this appellate outcome, and the cost-and-interest award — including 1% monthly default interest and TJSP-indexed monetary correction — provides a financial remedy. For an individual inventor asserting rights against a commercial entity, an appellate win carries significant practical weight, confirming the utility model’s scope extends to Artemassa’s allegedly infringing product.
Utility model enforced at appealArtemassa faces infringement liability and escalating cost exposure
With the appeal granted against it, Artemassa Produtos para Vidraçaria Ltda faces confirmed infringement liability under BRMU8400847Y1. The cost provisions — monetary correction indexed to TJSP rates and 1% monthly interest compounding from final judgment — mean financial exposure increases until full payment. Artemassa’s options at this stage are limited to extraordinary appellate avenues (e.g. special appeal to the STJ on legal grounds), which face a high threshold for admission under Brazilian procedural rules.
Liability confirmed; appeal costs compoundingVibration damper IP enforcement sets a precedent in glazing hardware
This outcome signals that utility model rights over mechanical components — even relatively niche hardware like vibration dampers for gap-opening devices — are enforceable in Brazilian courts through the appellate level. Glazing hardware manufacturers and distributors operating in Brazil should treat utility model patents as credible enforcement vehicles. Individual inventors with registered utility models have demonstrated willingness and capacity to pursue multi-year infringement litigation to appellate resolution. FTO assessments in this product category are warranted.
Utility model risk — glazing hardware sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Enio Bianchi | Individual | Individual inventor — holder of utility model BRMU8400847Y1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Artemassa Produtos para Vidraçaria Ltda | Individual | Brazilian glazing and glass hardware products supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict’s operative language — ‘the appeal is allowed’ — confirms a full appellate grant rather than a partial or remanded disposition. The court’s specification of TJSP monetary correction tables and 1% monthly default interest is procedurally standard in Brazilian civil judgments but signals a substantive ruling rather than a purely procedural outcome. The absence of detailed claim-by-claim analysis in the available record is consistent with São Paulo appellate practice, where the full reasoning appears in the acórdão rather than the operative excerpt. The cost and fee provisions suggest both compensatory and deterrent intent.
BRMU8400847Y1 — vibration damper arrangement for gap-opening devices
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model patent registered with the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI). It covers an arrangement for a vibration damper specifically designed for use in devices that open gaps — a mechanical configuration relevant to glazing, window, and door hardware systems. Utility models in Brazil provide a shorter, more accessible form of protection for functional innovations in mechanical constructions, with a standard term of 15 years from filing. The ‘Y1’ publication suffix indicates a granted utility model.
In the glazing and glass hardware sector, vibration damping components serve a functional and safety role, reducing oscillation and wear in opening mechanisms. Patent protection over such an arrangement — even a utility model — can foreclose competitors from adopting the same mechanical configuration without licence. The fact that this utility model survived appellate scrutiny in an infringement action strengthens its commercial value as an enforcement asset. Competitors and distributors in Brazil’s glazing hardware supply chain face elevated risk if their products incorporate similar vibration damper configurations.
Should your product team run an FTO against BRMU8400847Y1?
Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of glazing hardware, window opening mechanisms, or vibration damper components sold into the Brazilian market should treat BRMU8400847Y1 as an active enforcement risk following this appellate outcome. The patent holder has demonstrated both the will and capacity to litigate through the TJSP appellate level. Product teams developing or sourcing gap-opening device components should commission an FTO analysis benchmarked against the claim scope as upheld at appeal before launching or continuing Brazilian market operations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map BRMU8400847Y1 against your product specifications, identify adjacent utility model filings at INPI in the glazing and mechanical hardware space, and flag design-around opportunities. Eureka’s Brazilian patent database integration means you can screen against both granted utility models and pending applications — providing a current-state risk picture before your next product release or distribution agreement in Brazil.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU8400847Y1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar vibration damper and glazing hardware patent cases in Brazilian courts
Cases involving utility model infringement actions for mechanical hardware components before the Court of Justice of São Paulo and other Brazilian state courts.
What this case signals for the Brazilian glazing hardware IP landscape
An individual inventor’s appellate win over a commercial supplier confirms that Brazilian utility models carry real enforcement weight in hardware components.
Brazilian utility models are credible enforcement tools — even for individuals
This case demonstrates that a single inventor can successfully prosecute a multi-year infringement claim through to appellate victory against a commercial entity in Brazil. Utility models (modelo de utilidade) registered with INPI confer enforceable rights before state courts, and the TJSP has shown willingness to uphold them. Companies sourcing or distributing glazing hardware components in Brazil should not discount utility model risk.
Cost-and-interest provisions make delay costly for infringing defendants
The TJSP’s award of 1% monthly default interest plus TJSP-indexed monetary correction from final judgment means financial exposure compounds materially over time. Defendants in Brazilian IP proceedings who pursue full appellate litigation without a clear defence face an escalating cost burden. Early settlement or design-around strategies may present lower total cost compared to litigation through to final judgment.
Bianchi v Artemassa — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo granted the appeal in favour of plaintiff Enio Bianchi in case 1011992-24.2018.8.26.0223, closed on 5 June 2024. The ruling upheld the infringement action concerning utility model BRMU8400847Y1 and awarded costs with TJSP monetary correction and 1% monthly default interest from final judgment.
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model patent covering an arrangement for a vibration damper used in devices that open gaps — relevant to glazing and window hardware. Enio Bianchi asserted that Artemassa Produtos para Vidraçaria infringed this utility model, leading to a multi-year infringement action before the São Paulo courts.
In Brazilian civil procedure, ‘dar provimento ao recurso’ (granting the appeal) means the appellate panel found reversible error in the lower court decision and substituted or materially altered it in the appellant’s favour. It is a full appellate reversal rather than a remand, and the appellate decision becomes the operative judgment governing the parties’ rights and obligations.
Brazilian civil judgments routinely apply monetary correction (correção monetária) using official court index tables — here the TJSP table — to preserve the real value of awards against inflation. Default interest (juros de mora) of 1% per month is standard under Brazilian civil law. In this case, correction runs from each cost advance; interest runs from the final unappealable decision date.
Following a TJSP appellate grant, Artemassa’s primary avenue would be a special appeal (recurso especial) to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) on the basis of federal law violation, or an extraordinary appeal (recurso extraordinário) to the STF on constitutional grounds. Both face strict admissibility thresholds. Absent a successful further appeal, the TJSP judgment becomes final and enforceable, with costs and interest continuing to accrue.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.