Luciano Tanz v. iFly Brasil — Appeal Dismissed in Indoor Skydiving Patent Dispute
Inventor Luciano Tanz brought an infringement action against iFly Brasil Indoor Skydiving Ltda, asserting two Brazilian patents covering wind tunnel free fall simulator technology. The Court of Justice of São Paulo denied the appeal, closing the case on 6 February 2024.
Indoor skydiving patent appeal denied at São Paulo appellate court
Luciano Tanz, an individual inventor, filed an infringement action (Case No. 1063640-58.2017.8.26.0100) before the courts of São Paulo, Brazil, asserting two patents — BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A — against iFly Brasil Indoor Skydiving Ltda, the Brazilian operator of the internationally recognised iFly brand of indoor skydiving facilities. The patents in dispute relate to wind tunnel technology used to simulate free fall conditions, the core engineering proposition behind iFly’s commercial offering.
The appellate panel of the Court of Justice of São Paulo denied granting the appeal, affirming the lower court’s outcome. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed’, which typically signals that the appellate court found no reversible error in the first-instance decision and that iFly Brasil’s position was upheld at both levels of review. The case closed on 6 February 2024.
Because no filing date is available in the public record, the precise duration of the litigation cannot be confirmed. The case number prefix suggests it was filed in 2017, which would indicate a multi-year journey through the Brazilian judiciary before final appellate resolution. What remains unknown is whether any licence negotiations, interim injunctions, or damages determinations occurred at the trial level prior to the appeal.
Filing to dismissal in 0 days
Case closed 6 February 2024
Appeal denied: what the São Paulo appellate decision means for both parties
What ‘appeal dismissed’ means under Brazilian civil procedure
In Brazilian civil procedure, denial of an appeal (desprovimento do recurso) means the appellate panel found no grounds to reverse the lower court. The lower court’s ruling stands as the operative judgment. For Tanz, this forecloses the relief sought at first instance unless further extraordinary review — such as a Special Appeal to the STJ — is pursued. For iFly Brasil, it represents a confirmed judicial outcome at both trial and appellate levels.
Appeal denied — lower ruling affirmedImplications for Luciano Tanz as patent holder
With the appeal dismissed, Tanz’s infringement claims under BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A were not vindicated at either court level in this action. Whether the patents themselves were challenged on validity grounds, or whether infringement was simply not established, is not specified in the public record. Tanz may retain the patent rights and could theoretically pursue separate actions, but this litigation provides no favourable precedent for those efforts.
Infringement claims not upheldiFly Brasil’s confirmed freedom to operate in Brazil
The dismissal of Tanz’s appeal leaves iFly Brasil free from the specific infringement claims advanced in this action. As a commercial operator in Brazil’s growing experiential leisure sector, this outcome removes a significant litigation cloud over its wind tunnel technology platform. The result is consistent with iFly’s broader global posture of defending its technology against third-party patent assertions in the indoor skydiving space.
Defendant’s operations confirmed unencumberedStatus of BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A post-litigation
The appeal dismissal does not automatically invalidate either patent — Brazilian courts ruling on infringement do not necessarily cancel patent rights. BRPI9702554A, based on its numbering, suggests an application dating to 1997, raising potential questions about remaining term. BRPI0513675B1 suggests a 2005 application. Practitioners should independently verify current legal status of both patents through INPI records before drawing conclusions about enforceability.
Patent status — verify via INPIFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LUCIANO TANZ | Company | Individual inventor — holder of BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | IFLY BRASIL INDOOR SKYDIVING LTDA | Company | iFly Brasil Indoor Skydiving Ltda — Brazilian operator of commercial indoor skydiving wind tunnel facilitiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Justice of Sao Paulo — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The appellate panel’s stated verdict — ‘I deny granting the appeal’ — is a standard Brazilian appellate formulation indicating unanimous or majority rejection of the appellant’s grounds. The phrasing does not address patent validity directly, nor does it indicate whether damages or injunctive relief were ever awarded at first instance. For practitioners, the operative effect is that the trial-level outcome stands and the plaintiff has exhausted ordinary appellate review in São Paulo state courts.
BRPI0513675B1 & BRPI9702554A — Wind Tunnel Free Fall Simulator Patents
BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A are Brazilian patents registered with INPI (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial) covering technology associated with wind-driven free fall simulation — the engineering basis for commercial indoor skydiving facilities. BRPI9702554A’s numbering suggests a 1997 priority date, placing it among the earliest Brazilian IP claims in this technology domain. BRPI0513675B1 suggests a 2005 application, potentially covering improvements or distinct embodiments of the same general wind tunnel concept.
Indoor skydiving wind tunnel technology represents a commercially significant and growing sector of the experiential leisure industry. Patents in this space cover aerodynamic chamber design, airflow generation and control systems, and safety enclosure architecture. With iFly operating a global network of facilities, third-party patents in key markets like Brazil carry material commercial risk. The outcome of this litigation does not extinguish the patents but does establish a precedent that iFly’s specific implementation was not found to infringe — or that the claims were not substantiated in this action.
Should your team run an FTO against BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A?
Any company designing, importing, or operating indoor skydiving or wind tunnel simulation facilities in Brazil should treat these two patents as live FTO targets — regardless of the outcome of this specific case. The dismissal of Tanz’s appeal does not cancel the patents. If your product or facility relies on vertical wind tunnel aerodynamics, recirculating airflow systems, or free fall simulation chambers, a formal claim-by-claim FTO analysis against both BRPI registrations is prudent before market entry or expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A against your product specifications and flag overlap risk across the INPI register and related international patent families. Continuous claim monitoring through Eureka ensures you receive alerts if either patent is assigned, licensed, or if related continuation applications emerge — critical intelligence for operators in the Brazilian leisure and entertainment technology market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRPI0513675B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wind tunnel and indoor skydiving patent infringement cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the indoor skydiving and leisure tech IP landscape
A Brazilian appellate dismissal in a wind tunnel patent dispute has implications beyond this single case for IP strategy in the growing indoor skydiving sector.
Individual inventors face high evidentiary bar against commercial operators in Brazil
This case is consistent with a pattern in which individual inventors asserting patents against well-resourced commercial operators face significant procedural and evidentiary challenges in Brazilian courts. Without evidence of how the infringement claim was constructed, practitioners advising patent holders should scrutinise claim mapping and technical equivalence standards under Brazilian patent law before committing to litigation.
Indoor skydiving technology is an active patent enforcement zone — monitor closely
The existence of two separate Brazilian patents covering wind tunnel free fall simulation technology — one from 1997 and one from 2005 — suggests the IP landscape in this sector has layered prior art. Companies entering or expanding in the Brazilian indoor skydiving market should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against both INPI-registered patents and any related international family members before deployment.
LUCIANO v IFLY — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo denied Luciano Tanz’s appeal on 6 February 2024, affirming the lower court’s outcome in favour of iFly Brasil. The infringement claims under BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A were not upheld at either court level in this action.
Tanz asserted two Brazilian patents: BRPI0513675B1 (suggesting a 2005 application) and BRPI9702554A (suggesting a 1997 application). Both relate to wind tunnel free fall simulation technology — the core engineering basis of iFly Brasil’s commercial indoor skydiving facilities.
No. A Brazilian appellate dismissal of an infringement action does not automatically cancel or invalidate the asserted patents. BRPI0513675B1 and BRPI9702554A remain registered with INPI unless separately challenged and cancelled. Practitioners should verify current legal status directly through INPI records.
The appeal was decided by the Court of Justice of São Paulo (Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo), Brazil’s state-level appellate court for São Paulo. The case was filed under São Paulo’s first-instance civil jurisdiction, with the appellate panel issuing the final ruling on 6 February 2024.
Based on the case record, BRPI9702554A is associated with wind tunnel free fall simulation technology — the type used in commercial indoor skydiving facilities such as those operated by iFly Brasil. The precise claim scope requires review of the INPI patent register. Its 1997 application date suggests it is among the earliest Brazilian patents in this technology domain.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.