São Paulo court grants Johnson & Johnson extraordinary emergency relief and reinstates injunction in med tech patent dispute

Context: 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).

What’s new: 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).

Direct impact: 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.

Wider ramifications:

• 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.