Originally published at IP FRAY https://ipfray.com/sao-paulo-court-grants-johnson-johnson-extraordinary-emergency-relief-and-reinstates-injunction-in-med-tech-patent-dispute/
April 2, 2026
The dispute between Johnson & Johnson and Scitech concerns the alleged infringement of a patent covering a motorized surgical stapler. The litigation forms part of a broader set of proceedings, which in Brazil includes a nullity challenge to the Brazilian patent-in-suit pending before the Federal Court in Rio de Janeiro. Following a first-instance decision finding infringement based on expert evidence and granting injunctive relief, the case proceeded to the appellate stage, where the injunction was lifted. Johnson & Johnson brought a further appeal (technically, two related appeals: one at the state and another at the federal level).
The President of the Private Law Section of the São Paulo Court of Justice has granted suspensive effect to Johnson & Johnson’s special and extraordinary appeals, reinstating the injunction against Scitech that had previously been lifted at the appellate stage. In doing so, the court relied on the expert findings underpinning the first-instance decision and found that continued commercialization of the allegedly infringing product posed a sufficient risk of harm. The decision restores injunctive relief on an interim basis, pending a decision on the petitions for appeal (or, if the petitions are granted, pending their adjudication).
The decision prevents Scitech from resuming commercialization of a surgical stapler named Altus during the further appellate process and reinforces the practical effect of the earlier infringement finding. For Johnson & Johnson, this preserves the exclusivity of its patent rights for the time being, while requiring the defendant to comply with injunctive measures despite ongoing appellate proceedings.
The decision is procedurally notable. It is more common for appellate courts to lift first-instance injunctions than for a higher-level decision-maker within the same court to subsequently reinstate them through extraordinary relief.
It is also not ordinarily the case that a suspension of the effects of a first appellate ruling reinstates the entire first-instance judgment.
enforcement-oriented approach at the appellate stage is also noteworthy. The court was willing to restore the injunction where ongoing commercialization risked undermining the effectiveness of the underlying patent rights.
This decision comes only a week after the same court’s Acer v. Nokia order (March 30, 2026 ip fray article), which showed that patentees generally prefer to litigate in the Rio de Janeiro State Court. Decisions such as in this case may make São Paulo a more popular enforcement venue.
The decision furthermore highlights the centrality of expert evidence in Brazilian patent litigation. Technical findings developed at first instance not only determine infringement, but may also carry forward to support interim relief at the appellate level, reinforcing their role across multiple procedural stages.
The decision places significant weight on a court-appointed expert’s findings. The court treated the expert report as sufficient to resolve the technical issues in dispute, rejecting further requests to expand the scope of the analysis.
This reliance on expert evidence extended beyond the confines of the first-instance proceedings. The President of the Private Law Section relied on the same expert when granting Johnson & Johnson’s emergency motion.
At a subsequent stage of the appellate proceedings, the Presidency of the Private Law Section of the São Paulo Court of Justice granted suspensive effect to the pending appeals, thereby suspending the earlier appellate decision that had lifted the injunction and effectively restoring the restriction on the commercialization of the disputed product pending further review.
In doing so, the President identified the risk of harm in the continued commercialization of the allegedly infringing product (periculum in mora), considering that allowing sales to resume during the appellate process could exacerbate the damage suffered by the patent holder.
It reiterated that the granting of suspensive effect is an exceptional measure, requiring the concurrent presence of likelihood of success and risk of harm. Despite this high threshold, it found that both requirements were satisfied in the present case, with the prior expert finding apparently playing a key role in supporting this assessment.
The President also questioned the basis on which the injunction had been lifted, emphasizing that the likelihood of the claim, previously supported by expert evidence, had not been adequately reassessed, suggesting a corrective approach to the earlier procedural decision. Those deficiencies convinced the President of the other requirement for emergency relief being fulfilled: fumus boni iuris.
This section gives quick answers to the most common questions about this insight. What changed, why it matters, and the practical next steps. If your situation needs tailored advice, contact the RNA Law team.
Q1: What dispute is addressed in the decision?
A1: It concerns alleged infringement of a patent covering a motorized surgical stapler, in litigation between Johnson & Johnson and Scitech.
Q2: What did the São Paulo Court of Justice decide at this stage?
A2: The President of the Private Law Section granted suspensive effect to Johnson & Johnson’s special and extraordinary appeals, reinstating the injunction that had been lifted on appeal.
Q3: What practical effect does the reinstated injunction have?
A3: It prevents Scitech from resuming commercialization of the surgical stapler named Altus while the further appellate process continues.
Q4: Why did the court consider emergency relief appropriate?
A4: The decision cited risk of harm from continued commercialization (periculum in mora) and found the requirements for exceptional suspensive effect met, supported by the prior expert finding.
Q5: What role did expert evidence play?
A5: The court treated the court-appointed expert report as sufficient on the technical issues and relied on the same expert findings when granting the emergency motion.
.webp)
