Gepco v. Markom: São Paulo Court Partially Upholds Ballistic Glass Patent
Gepco Indústria e Comércio Ltda brought an infringement action against Markom Comercial Ltda and the estate of Luiz Carlos Meira de Vasconcellos over patent BRPI9204323A, covering interchangeable ballistic armor glass for automobiles. The Court of Justice of São Paulo partially granted Gepco’s appeal, finding that manufacture and sale of armored glass reproducing the patented design constitutes a violation of Gepco’s rights.
São Paulo appellate court splits the difference on ballistic glass patent
Gepco Indústria e Comércio Ltda filed an infringement action against Markom Comercial Ltda and the estate of Luiz Carlos Meira de Vasconcellos at the Court of Justice of São Paulo, asserting rights under Brazilian patent application BRPI9204323A. The patent covers a system of interchangeable ballistic armor for automobiles — specifically, multi-layer glass or polycarbonate panels designed to be installed and removed without altering the vehicle’s original appearance or requiring mechanical modifications.
The appellate court partially reformed the lower decision, ruling that Gepco’s patent rights are infringed when competitors manufacture or sell armored glass that reproduces the patented architecture. For fixed glass, infringement is found where the product is removable, uses three sheets of 3–6 mm glass or polycarbonate with the outer sheet 10–15 mm larger, and fits within the existing body cavity without a rubber frieze. For lifting windows, infringement arises where three-sheet construction mirrors the patented dimensions and the smaller blades lack any individualized support channel or rubber support.
The partial grant suggests the lower court had not fully recognised the scope of Gepco’s rights, and the appellate panel corrected that on specific technical grounds while stopping short of a full reversal. The precise scope of what was denied at the lower level — and whether damages or injunctive relief were addressed — is not fully resolved from the public record. The outcome nonetheless strengthens Gepco’s enforcement position in the Brazilian armored vehicle aftermarket, where interchangeable ballistic glazing is a commercially significant product category.
Filing to Appeal Granted In Part in 0 days
Case closed 5 June 2025 by the Court of Justice of São Paulo
Appeal partially granted: what the São Paulo ruling means for both parties
Partial grant: lower decision reformed on patent scope
A partial grant of appeal means the appellate court agreed with Gepco on at least some grounds, reforming — but not wholly overturning — the prior decision. The court identified specific technical parameters that define infringement, giving both parties a more precisely delimited boundary. Claims outside the partial grant may remain unresolved or were not upheld, which is why the outcome is partial rather than a complete reversal.
Partial appellate reformGepco secures enforceable infringement finding on core patent claims
The ruling confirms that Gepco’s patent rights under BRPI9204323A are enforceable against Markom’s manufacture and sale of armored glass reproducing the patented design. Gepco now holds an appellate-level finding of infringement, which strengthens its position in any subsequent enforcement action, damages assessment, or injunction proceedings in Brazilian courts. The detailed technical criteria set out by the court provide a clear template for future enforcement.
Infringement confirmedMarkom faces binding infringement parameters on ballistic glass products
Markom Comercial Ltda and the defendant estate now face an appellate ruling that defines, with technical specificity, which product configurations infringe Gepco’s patent. Continued manufacture or sale of armored glass matching those parameters risks contempt of court and damages liability. The partial nature of the grant may leave some product variants outside the infringement finding, but the public record does not confirm which specific claims were excluded.
Infringement liability establishedRuling reshapes competitive landscape for Brazilian ballistic glazing
For other manufacturers in the Brazilian armored vehicle aftermarket, this ruling signals that interchangeable ballistic glass patents will be actively enforced at appellate level. The court’s technically precise infringement criteria — sheet count, thickness, dimensional tolerances, and assembly method — effectively define a design-around boundary. Companies offering removable multi-layer glazing should review their product specifications against BRPI9204323A and this ruling’s parameters before continuing or launching sales in Brazil.
Design-around risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Gepco Indústria and Comércio Ltda | Individual | Armored automotive glass manufacturer — holder of BRPI9204323ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Markom Comercial Ltda and Espólio de Luiz Carlos Meira de Vasconcellos | Individual | Markom Comercial Ltda and estate of Luiz Carlos Meira de Vasconcellos — armored glass tradersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The appellate panel’s phrasing — ‘PARTIAL GRANTING of the appeal, partially reforming the aggravated decision’ — confirms that the lower court undervalued Gepco’s patent scope, but the reformulation is bounded. The court’s operative language is notably technical, specifying sheet counts, dimensional tolerances and assembly conditions as the infringement triggers. This approach is consistent with Brazilian industrial property law’s requirement to assess infringement claim-by-claim against the patent’s technical scope. The ‘partial’ qualifier likely means certain relief sought by Gepco — potentially damages quantum or broader injunctive terms — was not granted, though the public record does not specify what was excluded.
BRPI9204323A — Interchangeable Ballistic Armor Glass for Automobiles
BRPI9204323A is a Brazilian patent application covering a system of interchangeable ballistic armor for automobiles, implemented through multi-layer glass or polycarbonate panels. The invention’s core novelty lies in the ability to provide ballistic protection that can be assembled and disassembled without mechanical alteration of the vehicle’s bodywork or original appearance — a significant departure from permanently integrated armoring solutions. The patent specifies distinct configurations for fixed glass and lifting windows, with layer thickness, dimensional offsets, and support channel requirements defining the protected embodiments.
Strategically, BRPI9204323A addresses a commercially important niche: the Brazilian executive protection and armored vehicle aftermarket, where removable and reusable ballistic glazing offers cost, resale, and regulatory advantages over permanent conversion. The São Paulo appellate ruling confirms that this patent remains actively enforceable and that Brazilian courts will engage in technical claim analysis at appellate level. Any competitor active in the Brazilian armored glass segment — whether manufacturing locally or importing — should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis before product launch or expansion.
Should your armored glass product be cleared against BRPI9204323A?
If your company manufactures, imports, or sells removable multi-layer ballistic glazing in Brazil — particularly for the automotive aftermarket — BRPI9204323A is a directly relevant enforcement risk. The São Paulo appellate ruling has now established technically precise infringement criteria, meaning products that use three-sheet construction within the specified dimensional tolerances, without integrated rubber support, are at elevated legal risk. This applies to OEM suppliers, aftermarket armoring shops, and distributors operating under any commercial arrangement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical specifications against the claims of BRPI9204323A and identify any related INPI filings in Gepco’s portfolio. By cross-referencing layer configuration, dimensional parameters, and assembly method against the court’s infringement criteria, Eureka helps R&D and legal teams identify design-around options before committing to production. Monitoring alerts can also flag new filings or enforcement actions tied to this patent family.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRPI9204323A to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ballistic glazing and automotive IP infringement cases
Explore related patent infringement cases involving ballistic glass, automotive armoring technology, and industrial property enforcement before Brazilian and South American courts.
What this case signals for the armored automotive IP landscape in Brazil
Gepco’s partial appellate win sets a technically specific infringement benchmark that every ballistic glazing supplier operating in Brazil must now assess.
Technically defined infringement criteria create clear design-around boundaries
The court enumerated exact sheet counts, thickness ranges (3–6 mm), and dimensional tolerances (10–15 mm oversize on external sheet) as the infringement test. This level of technical specificity is unusual and gives competitors a precise — if narrow — basis for designing compliant products. Any ballistic glass system using different layer counts, adhesive bonding, or integrated rubber friezes may fall outside the ruling’s scope.
Removability and OEM-appearance preservation are core patent claims to watch
The patent’s key commercial differentiator — that armored glass can be removed and reused without altering the vehicle’s original appearance — is now confirmed as protectable IP under Brazilian law. Competitors developing ballistic glazing solutions should treat removability and non-modification of bodywork as a legally sensitive design zone, particularly for aftermarket products targeting the Brazilian executive protection market.
Ltda v Markom — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo partially granted Gepco’s appeal, reforming the lower decision to find that Markom’s manufacture and sale of armored glass reproducing the patented interchangeable ballistic glazing system constitutes infringement of BRPI9204323A. The ruling specifies technical parameters — sheet count, thickness, dimensional offsets, and absence of rubber support — as the infringement test for both fixed glass and lifting window configurations.
For fixed glass, infringement arises where the product is removable and reusable, comprises three sheets of 3–6 mm glass or polycarbonate with the external sheet 10–15 mm larger than the others, and fits within the vehicle body cavity without a rubber frieze. For lifting windows, infringement arises where a three-sheet construction is used with the middle sheet matching the original glass dimensions and the smaller blades lacking any individualized support channel or rubber backing.
The court’s partial grant indicates that Gepco succeeded on at least some grounds of its appeal — specifically the infringement finding — while other aspects of the requested relief were not fully upheld. The public record does not specify which elements were excluded, but this is consistent with Brazilian appellate practice where damages quantum or the breadth of injunctive relief may be subject to separate or further proceedings.
In Brazilian law, ‘espólio’ refers to the estate of a deceased person. The inclusion of the estate of Luiz Carlos Meira de Vasconcellos as a defendant suggests he was a party with legal responsibility connected to the infringing activity — potentially as a controlling individual or original co-developer — whose estate assumed his legal obligations upon his death. This is consistent with Brazilian civil procedure for continuing claims against deceased respondents.
The court’s technically precise infringement criteria — three-sheet construction, 3–6 mm thickness, 10–15 mm dimensional offsets, and no rubber support on smaller blades — effectively define a design space to avoid. Manufacturers may potentially avoid infringement by using different layer counts, alternative thickness ranges, adhesive or integrated bonding methods, or support structures that depart from the patented configuration. However, a full FTO analysis against BRPI9204323A’s claims is essential before relying on any design-around strategy.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.