Valera v. Edege: Screen Excluder Patent Appeal Partially Granted
André Capito Valera pursued an infringement action against agricultural equipment manufacturer Edege Industria de Equipamentos Agropecuarios Ltda over Brazilian utility model BRMU1702042U2, covering an arrangement applied to screen excluder technology. The Court of Justice of São Paulo partially granted the plaintiff’s appeal while denying the defendant’s cross-appeal, signalling a meaningful win for the patent holder at the appellate level.
São Paulo court backs patent holder in screen excluder dispute
André Capito Valera, holder of Brazilian utility model patent BRMU1702042U2 covering an ‘Arrangement Applied Screen Excluidora’, brought an infringement action against Edege Industria de Equipamentos Agropecuarios Ltda, an agricultural equipment manufacturer operating in Brazil. The case was filed before the Court of Justice of São Paulo (case no. 1014080-97.2019.8.26.0482) and proceeded through to an appellate ruling that closed on 7 January 2025.
The appellate court granted the plaintiff’s appeal in part and denied the defendant’s cross-appeal in full. This split outcome suggests the lower court’s decision was found to require correction in at least one respect favourable to the patent holder, while the defendant’s attempt to challenge or limit the ruling below was entirely rejected. The precise remedies awarded — whether damages, injunctive relief, or both — are not fully detailed in the available public record.
The partial grant to the plaintiff, combined with an outright denial of the defendant’s sticker (cross-appeal), is consistent with a ruling that reinforces the enforceability of BRMU1702042U2 in the agricultural equipment sector. What remains unknown from the public record is the quantum of any damages awarded, whether an injunction was confirmed, and the specific claims found to be infringed. The outcome nonetheless strengthens Valera’s IP position against Edege.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 0 days
Case closed 7 January 2025 by the Court of Justice of São Paulo
São Paulo appeal ruling: what the partial grant means for both parties
Partial appellate grant: lower ruling corrected in plaintiff’s favour
A partial grant of the plaintiff’s appeal means the appellate court identified at least one reversible error or omission in the lower court’s decision that warranted correction in Valera’s favour. It does not constitute a full reversal — some elements of the original ruling likely stand. The simultaneous denial of the defendant’s cross-appeal signals the court found no basis to disturb any aspect of the lower ruling that was unfavourable to Edege.
Appeal partially grantedValera gains ground: appeal win strengthens enforcement position
The partial grant is a meaningful result for Valera as an individual inventor-patentee. The utility model BRMU1702042U2 has survived appellate scrutiny and the defendant’s cross-appeal was denied outright, suggesting the court found the patent’s enforceability and the infringement finding to be sound. This outcome strengthens Valera’s ability to enforce the patent against Edege and may deter similar infringement by other agricultural equipment manufacturers.
Enforcement reinforcedEdege’s cross-appeal fails: liability exposure sustained or increased
For Edege Industria, the denial of its cross-appeal is significant. The company was unable to use the appellate stage to reduce, reverse, or limit the adverse findings below. Combined with the plaintiff’s partial success on appeal, Edege likely faces sustained or expanded liability relative to the first-instance outcome. Further appeal to a higher São Paulo court remains a theoretical option, though the threshold for such review is typically high.
Cross-appeal deniedScreen excluder IP risk elevated for agricultural equipment sector
This outcome signals that Brazilian utility model patents in the agricultural equipment space can be successfully enforced at the appellate level even by individual inventors against established manufacturers. Companies designing, manufacturing, or distributing screen excluder arrangements in Brazil should treat BRMU1702042U2 as an active enforcement risk. The ruling is consistent with increasing IP enforcement activity in Brazil’s agri-equipment sector.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | André Capito Valera | Individual | Individual inventor and patent holder — holder of BRMU1702042U2 screen excluder utility modelSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Edege Industria de Equipamentos Agropecuarios Ltda | Individual | Edege Industria de Equipamentos Agropecuarios Ltda — Brazilian agricultural equipment manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Justice of Sao PauloSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language — granting the author’s appeal and partially granting the ‘exposed’ relief while denying the defendant’s cross-appeal — is characteristic of a Brazilian appellate court correcting specific elements of a lower ruling without wholesale reversal. The asymmetric outcome, favouring the plaintiff on appeal while rejecting all of the defendant’s counter-arguments, suggests the appellate panel found the infringement basis sound and identified at least one additional remedy or quantum correction owed to the patent holder. The scope of the partial grant and the precise claims at issue are not fully ascertainable from the public record alone.
BRMU1702042U2 — Arrangement Applied to Screen Excluder Technology
BRMU1702042U2 is a Brazilian utility model covering an ‘Arrangement Applied Screen Excluidora’ — a mechanical configuration used in agricultural screen excluder equipment. Utility models in Brazil (registered as ‘modelo de utilidade’) protect functional improvements to known objects or tools and benefit from a shorter prosecution timeline than invention patents. The BRMU prefix indicates a Brazilian application, with the ‘U2’ suffix denoting a granted utility model. The specific application date is not confirmed in the available public record.
Screen excluder arrangements are used in agricultural processing and grain handling to separate or filter materials by size. The utility model’s enforceability — confirmed at appellate level in this case — means the claimed configuration represents a meaningful IP barrier for competitors in the Brazilian agri-equipment market. Any manufacturer or distributor of comparable screen excluder assemblies operating in Brazil should treat this utility model as an active enforcement risk and conduct a targeted FTO review before commercialisation.
Should your team run an FTO against BRMU1702042U2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or imports agricultural screen excluder equipment into Brazil, BRMU1702042U2 is a relevant FTO target following this appellate ruling. The partial grant of the plaintiff’s appeal confirms the utility model’s enforceability and widens the risk window. Product teams working on screen separation or exclusion mechanisms for grain or crop processing should map their technical configurations against the claims of this utility model before entering the Brazilian market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can cross-reference your product’s technical features against the claims of BRMU1702042U2 and related Brazilian utility models, flag overlapping configurations, and surface prior art that may support design-around strategies. Eureka also monitors active enforcement activity around utility model holders in the Brazilian agricultural equipment sector, giving IP teams early warning of emerging litigation risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on BRMU1702042U2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar screen excluder and agri-equipment patent cases in Brazil
Explore related patent infringement actions involving agricultural equipment utility models before São Paulo and Brazilian federal courts.
What this case signals for the Brazilian agri-equipment IP landscape
An individual inventor prevailing at appellate level over a commercial manufacturer underscores the enforcement value of Brazilian utility model patents in agri-equipment.
Brazilian utility models are enforceable tools for individual inventors
This case demonstrates that a solo inventor holding a Brazilian utility model (BRMU) can pursue and partially prevail against a commercial agricultural equipment company in São Paulo courts. Utility model protection is faster to obtain than a full patent in Brazil and this outcome suggests courts will uphold such rights at the appellate level.
Denial of cross-appeal limits defendant’s ability to reframe liability
Edege’s failed cross-appeal is a reminder that attempting to relitigate infringement findings or reduce exposure on appeal carries risk. Where the lower court has established liability, appellate courts in São Paulo may be reluctant to disturb those findings absent clear legal error. Defendants in similar positions should weigh settlement prospects carefully before mounting a cross-appeal.
Valera v Edege — key questions answered
The Court of Justice of São Paulo partially granted the plaintiff André Capito Valera’s appeal and denied the defendant Edege’s cross-appeal in full. This outcome reinforced the enforceability of utility model BRMU1702042U2 against Edege and closed the case on 7 January 2025.
BRMU1702042U2 is a Brazilian utility model covering an ‘Arrangement Applied Screen Excluidora’ — a mechanical configuration used in agricultural screen excluder equipment. Utility models in Brazil protect functional improvements to known tools or devices and carry a shorter prosecution timeline than full invention patents.
A partial grant means the appellate court accepted some but not all of the appellant’s grounds of appeal, correcting specific elements of the lower court’s decision without fully reversing it. In this case, Valera’s appeal was partially granted, suggesting at least one remedy or finding was adjusted in the patent holder’s favour, while other aspects of the lower ruling were left undisturbed.
The outright denial of Edege’s cross-appeal means the defendant was unable to reduce or reverse the adverse findings from the first instance at this appellate stage. While further appeal to a higher court in São Paulo is theoretically possible, the threshold for such review is typically elevated and the denial of the cross-appeal narrows the arguments available to Edege on any future challenge.
Following the appellate ruling confirming enforceability of BRMU1702042U2, any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of agricultural screen excluder arrangements in Brazil faces a tangible FTO risk. Companies should map their product configurations against the utility model’s claims, consider design-around options, and monitor Valera’s enforcement activity in the Brazilian market to avoid similar infringement exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.