Isedio & Betomaq v. Eugênio: SHIELDJOINT Concrete Floor Patent Dispute — Appeal Dismissed
Isedio Limited and Betomaq Industrial Ltda brought a declaratory judgement action against Erika Marilene Aparecida Kunze Eugênio over two Brazilian utility model patents covering SHIELDJOINT concrete flooring systems. The Court of Justice of São Paulo denied the underlying claim, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed, closing the matter on 12 November 2024.
Declaratory action over SHIELDJOINT flooring patents ends at appeal
Isedio Limited and Betomaq Industrial Ltda jointly commenced a declaratory judgement action — case no. 1071910-32.2021.8.26.0100 — before the Court of Justice of São Paulo against individual defendant Erika Marilene Aparecida Kunze Eugênio. The dispute centred on two Brazilian utility model registrations, BRMU1432275U2 and BRMU1876717U2, both relating to the SHIELDJOINT concrete floor joint system. Declaratory proceedings of this nature typically seek a judicial determination of non-infringement, invalidity, or the scope of rights — consistent with a party seeking commercial freedom to operate without the threat of enforcement action by the patent holder.
The first-instance court denied the plaintiffs’ claim in its entirety, stating on the record: ‘the claim is denied.’ The plaintiffs pursued an appeal, but that appeal was dismissed by the Court of Justice of São Paulo, bringing the matter to a close on 12 November 2024. A dismissed appeal without a merits ruling means the appellate court did not adjudicate the substantive legal arguments on the appeal itself — the first-instance denial therefore stands as the operative decision in this case. For the defendant, the utility model registrations remain unimpaired by this litigation.
The public record does not disclose the precise grounds on which the appeal was dismissed — whether for procedural defect, untimeliness, or another non-merits basis — nor does it reveal the exact declaratory relief originally sought by the plaintiffs. The fact that two separate utility model numbers are cited suggests the plaintiffs sought to address both registrations simultaneously, consistent with a coordinated freedom-to-operate or invalidity strategy. The outcome leaves Eugênio’s patent rights intact and the plaintiffs without the declaratory relief they pursued, though the absence of a merits ruling on appeal leaves some legal questions open.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 0 days
Case closed 12 November 2024 by the Court of Justice of São Paulo
Appeal dismissed: what the São Paulo ruling means for both parties
Appeal dismissed without merits adjudication
A dismissed appeal means the appellate court declined to rule on the substantive arguments raised by Isedio and Betomaq. The first-instance denial of the declaratory claim therefore stands as the operative outcome. This is procedurally distinct from a court ruling that the plaintiffs were wrong on the merits — the appellate door was closed without engaging the underlying patent validity or non-infringement questions on appeal.
No merits ruling on appealEugênio’s utility model rights remain intact
With both the first-instance claim denied and the appeal dismissed, the defendant’s utility model registrations BRMU1432275U2 and BRMU1876717U2 emerge from this litigation without judicial impairment. The SHIELDJOINT system retains its registered protection, and no court has issued a declaration of invalidity or non-infringement. The defendant can continue to assert these rights against third parties in the Brazilian market.
Patent rights unaffectedPlaintiffs denied declaratory relief at every level
Isedio Limited and Betomaq Industrial failed to obtain the declaratory judgement they sought at first instance, and the appeal was dismissed before the appellate court could consider their arguments on the merits. Without a favourable declaration, both companies remain exposed to potential enforcement of the SHIELDJOINT utility model rights, depending on their commercial activities. Fresh proceedings or an administrative invalidity challenge at INPI may represent the remaining avenues.
Declaratory relief deniedSHIELDJOINT IP position strengthened in Brazilian market
The outcome reinforces the commercial position of the SHIELDJOINT utility model portfolio in Brazil. Competitors or distributors in the concrete flooring joint segment operating in the Brazilian market should treat these registrations as live and enforceable risks. The failed declaratory action may also deter near-term repeat challenges, as the litigation track record now favours the patent holder at both trial and appellate stages.
Enforcement risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ISEDIO LIMITED AND BETOMAQ INDUSTRIAL LTDA | Individual | Construction technology companies — joint holders of declaratory action over BRMU1432275U2 & BRMU1876717U2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ERIKA MARILENE APARECIDA KUNZE EUGÊNIO | Individual | Individual utility model patent holder — SHIELDJOINT concrete floor joint system registrationsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The recorded verdict — ‘the claim is denied’ — reflects a first-instance court finding against the plaintiffs on the declaratory relief sought. The phrasing indicates a substantive rejection rather than a mere procedural disposal at first instance. The subsequent appeal was dismissed without the appellate court engaging the merits, meaning no higher court has reviewed or reversed the trial court’s reasoning. The defendant’s utility model registrations therefore benefit from an unimpaired judicial track record across both levels of the São Paulo court system.
BRMU1432275U2 & BRMU1876717U2 — SHIELDJOINT concrete floor joint systems
BRMU1432275U2 and BRMU1876717U2 are Brazilian utility model registrations covering the SHIELDJOINT concrete floor joint system. Utility models in Brazil (modelos de utilidade) protect functional improvements to physical objects and require a lower inventive step than invention patents, making them a commonly used tool in the construction components sector. The dual-registration approach suggests incremental refinements to the joint system design were pursued separately, potentially covering different structural configurations or installation methods within the same SHIELDJOINT product family.
In the Brazilian construction materials market, utility model registrations for concrete flooring joint systems represent commercially significant IP given the widespread use of such products in industrial and commercial flooring applications. A competitor or distributor supplying joint systems into Brazil must assess these registrations carefully: SHIELDJOINT-type systems address load transfer, wear protection, and movement accommodation at slab edges — functions central to industrial flooring specification. The survival of both registrations through this litigation elevates the enforcement risk for parties active in this segment.
Should you run an FTO against BRMU1432275U2 and BRMU1876717U2?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or construction company specifying or supplying concrete floor joint systems in Brazil should treat these two utility model registrations as live FTO risks. The failed declaratory challenge confirms the registrations have not been judicially invalidated. Product teams working on concrete joint systems — including expansion joints, construction joints, or armoured joint profiles — should map their designs against both registrations before entering or expanding in the Brazilian market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate searches across Brazilian utility model databases, mapping claim scope against product specifications. Eureka can identify relevant prior art, track the prosecution history of both BRMU numbers, and surface related utility model families that may create additional clearance obligations in the Latin American construction sector. Start an FTO search directly from this page.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU1432275U2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cases: concrete flooring and construction joint patent disputes in Brazil
Explore related declaratory judgement and utility model enforcement cases in the Brazilian concrete flooring and construction components sector before the Court of Justice of São Paulo.
What this case signals for the concrete flooring IP landscape in Brazil
A dismissed declaratory challenge leaves Brazilian utility model rights in the concrete flooring sector intact and signals procedural risks for challengers.
Dismissed appeals leave first-instance findings undisturbed
When an appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds, the original decision stands without appellate scrutiny of the merits. For IP practitioners advising clients on Brazilian utility model challenges, ensuring procedural compliance at the appellate stage is as critical as the substantive legal strategy. A dismissal here meant the plaintiffs’ substantive arguments were never evaluated on appeal.
INPI administrative channels remain open after failed court action
Brazilian utility model registrations can be challenged through administrative nullity proceedings at INPI independently of court action. Parties who fail to obtain declaratory relief through the judiciary — as occurred here — may consider filing a post-grant administrative nullity request at INPI as a separate and parallel avenue, particularly where prior art or formal defects are available grounds.
LTDA v ERIKA — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo denied the plaintiffs’ declaratory claim at first instance and subsequently dismissed the appeal, closing the case on 12 November 2024. The defendant’s utility model registrations BRMU1432275U2 and BRMU1876717U2 remain unaffected.
Both registrations are Brazilian utility models (modelos de utilidade) associated with the SHIELDJOINT concrete floor joint system. Utility models in Brazil protect functional improvements to physical products and require a lower inventive threshold than full invention patents. The specific technical claims within each registration are available through INPI’s public database.
A dismissed appeal means the appellate court declined to adjudicate the merits of the appeal — typically for procedural reasons such as untimeliness or formal defects. The first-instance decision therefore stands as the operative outcome. In this case, the denial of the declaratory claim at first instance was not overturned or reviewed on the merits.
Administrative nullity proceedings at INPI remain a potential avenue independent of court action. Brazilian law allows any interested party to file a post-grant administrative nullity request against a utility model registration, based on grounds such as lack of novelty or inventive step. This route is separate from and not precluded by the judicial declaratory action outcome.
In Brazil, a declaratory judgement action (ação declaratória) allows a party to seek judicial confirmation of a legal right or relationship — in an IP context, this typically means seeking a declaration of non-infringement or patent invalidity. It is commonly used by parties facing enforcement threats who wish to establish legal certainty without waiting to be sued by the rights holder.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.