Motta Glazing v. Enio Bianchi: Vibration Damper Patent Appeal Partially Granted
Motta Glazing brought an infringement action against Enio Bianchi over Brazilian utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1, covering an arrangement for a vibration damper for gap-opening devices. The São Paulo Court of Justice partially granted the appeal, upholding the infringement finding and associated damages for acts committed during the patent’s validity, while limiting the injunctive obligation to the patent’s expiry date of 9 August 2022.
Infringement confirmed, injunction curtailed at patent expiry date
Motta Glazing commenced infringement proceedings against Enio Bianchi before the Brazilian courts, asserting utility model patent BRMU8400847Y1, which protects an arrangement for a vibration damper used in devices for opening gaps — a product category relevant to glazing and partition systems. The case was assigned case number 1040814-04.2018.8.26.0100, indicating it was filed in 2018 in the São Paulo state court system.
On appeal, the Court of Justice of São Paulo partially granted Bianchi’s appeal. The court found that the injunctive obligation imposed at first instance — prohibiting future acts of infringement — lost its legal force as of 9 August 2022, the date the patent expired. However, the appellate court expressly maintained the declaration of counterfeiting and preserved all legal consequences flowing from infringing acts committed while the patent was in force, including damages liability for that period.
The partial nature of the appellate success is commercially significant: Bianchi secured forward-looking relief from the injunction but did not escape liability for past infringement. The court’s decision to maintain the original cost allocation while declining to increase appellate fees reflects the balanced outcome. The public record does not disclose the quantum of damages awarded for acts during the patent term, nor whether further appeals were filed following this ruling.
Filing to Appeal Granted In Part in 0 days
Case closed 25 August 2025 at the São Paulo appellate court
São Paulo appeal partially granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Partial grant: infringement stands, injunction bounded by patent term
A partial grant at appeal means the appellate court agreed with the appellant on one discrete point — here, that an injunction cannot extend beyond the life of the patent — while rejecting all other grounds of challenge. The court did not disturb the lower court’s core finding of counterfeiting. This is a textbook application of the principle that IP rights, and the remedies they generate, are coextensive with the registered term.
Appeal partially grantedMotta Glazing retains infringement declaration and damages claim
Despite the partial success for the appellant, Motta Glazing’s core litigation objective was preserved: the counterfeiting declaration stands, and all legal consequences for acts committed during the patent’s validity period remain enforceable. For a patent that expired in August 2022, the commercially meaningful relief is retrospective damages rather than forward-looking injunction. The public record does not disclose the damages quantum, but the legal entitlement survives the appeal intact.
Infringement & damages preservedBianchi freed from injunction, but past liability confirmed
Enio Bianchi secured one material gain on appeal: the obligation not to act is extinguished prospectively from 9 August 2022 — meaning no contempt risk for post-expiry conduct. However, the counterfeiting label and exposure to damages for the period of patent validity were expressly maintained. The court’s refusal to increase appellate fees in light of the partial success provides modest procedural relief, but does not reduce substantive past liability.
Prospective injunction removedExpired patent still carries litigation teeth for past conduct
This outcome illustrates that expiry of a utility model patent does not extinguish infringement liability for acts committed during its term. Companies and individuals operating in glazing hardware, damper mechanisms, and gap-opening device sectors should note that enforcement actions can proceed — and succeed — even after a patent lapses, provided the infringing acts occurred within the registered period. Damages quantification proceedings are likely to continue separately.
Post-expiry damages riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MOTTA GLAZING | Individual | Glazing and partition systems company — holder of BRMU8400847Y1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ENIO BIANCHI | Individual | Enio Bianchi — individual party alleged to have infringed the vibration damper patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The appellate court’s phrasing — ‘partially granted to recognize that the obligation not to do… lost its effectiveness’ — is precise and consequential. The court did not find the original judgment wrong; it found that one remedy became legally spent by operation of patent expiry. The express preservation of the counterfeiting declaration ‘on its own and legal grounds’ signals that the first-instance findings of fact and law were upheld in full on the substantive infringement question. The cost ruling — maintaining distribution while declining to increase appellate fees — reflects standard Brazilian practice where partial success by an appellant mitigates but does not eliminate adverse cost consequences.
BRMU8400847Y1 — Vibration Damper for Gap-Opening Devices
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model patent — a category that protects functional improvements to existing products rather than wholly novel inventions, and which carries a maximum term of 15 years from filing under Brazilian IP law. The patent covers an arrangement for a vibration damper integrated into a device for opening gaps, a technology relevant to glazing panels, sliding partitions, and similar architectural hardware. The registration number prefix ‘BRMU’ confirms its utility model classification, and the ‘Y1’ suffix indicates a granted document.
For competitors in the Brazilian glazing hardware, facade engineering, and architectural fitting sectors, BRMU8400847Y1 is strategically relevant even in its expired state. The litigation record confirms that this patent was actively enforced through trial and appeal, demonstrating the patent holder’s willingness to pursue infringement claims. Companies developing damper mechanisms, vibration-absorbing fittings, or gap-control devices for the Brazilian market should map their products against this patent family to understand the prior art landscape and identify freedom-to-operate opportunities now that the term has elapsed.
Should you run an FTO analysis against BRMU8400847Y1?
Any R&D team or product manager working on vibration damper systems, sliding gap-opening hardware, or architectural glazing fittings for the Brazilian market should consider an FTO review against this patent and its related family. Although BRMU8400847Y1 expired on 9 August 2022, understanding its claims scope is essential for two reasons: first, to confirm your product design does not overlap with claims that generated proven infringement liability; second, to identify whether continuation or divisional applications by the same holder may still be active.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the claim language of BRMU8400847Y1, identify related Brazilian and international filings by Motta Glazing, and flag any live utility model or invention patents in the same technical class. For glazing hardware teams entering or expanding in Brazil, this analysis reduces the risk of inadvertently replicating a design with an established infringement history — and helps structure defensible design-around documentation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU8400847Y1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: vibration dampers and glazing hardware
Explore comparable Brazilian utility model infringement actions involving mechanical hardware and architectural components adjudicated at the São Paulo Court of Justice.
What this case signals for the Brazilian utility model IP landscape
A São Paulo appellate ruling on an expired utility model patent confirms retrospective enforcement remains live — with implications for the wider glazing and mechanical hardware sector.
Patent expiry ends injunctions but not damages exposure
This ruling reinforces that Brazilian courts will limit injunctive relief to the patent term but will not extinguish damages liability for prior infringement. Any company that manufactured or distributed products during the term of a now-expired utility model should audit historical exposure — the clock on past conduct does not stop at expiry.
Utility model patents in Brazil carry real enforcement weight
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model (MU), a registration type that covers functional improvements to existing objects. This case demonstrates that MU patents can sustain a full infringement action through trial and appeal, including a formal counterfeiting declaration — comparable enforcement value to a full invention patent for the right technology category.
GLAZING v ENIO — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo partially granted the defendant’s appeal. The infringement finding (counterfeiting declaration) and damages liability for acts during the patent term were upheld in full. The injunctive obligation not to infringe was extinguished prospectively from 9 August 2022, the date BRMU8400847Y1 expired.
BRMU8400847Y1 is a Brazilian utility model patent covering an arrangement for a vibration damper for a device for opening gaps — relevant to glazing panels and architectural partition hardware. Under Brazilian IP law, utility models have a maximum 15-year term. The patent expired on 9 August 2022, as confirmed by the appellate court’s ruling.
Yes. This case confirms that expiry of a Brazilian utility model patent does not eliminate liability for infringing acts committed during the patent term. The São Paulo court expressly maintained the counterfeiting declaration and associated damages consequences for the validity period, while only extinguishing the forward-looking injunction as of the expiry date.
A Brazilian utility model (MU) patent protects functional improvements to the form or arrangement of an object. It has a shorter examination process and a maximum 15-year term from filing, compared to 20 years for invention patents. The ‘Y1’ suffix on BRMU8400847Y1 indicates a granted document. As this case demonstrates, MU patents can sustain full infringement litigation including appellate proceedings.
In Brazilian civil procedure, an appeal being ‘partially granted’ (parcialmente provido) means the appellate court accepted some but not all of the appellant’s arguments. Here, Bianchi succeeded in having the forward-looking injunction limited to the patent term but failed to overturn the infringement declaration or damages exposure for past conduct. The first-instance judgment was maintained ‘on its own and legal grounds’ for all other matters.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.