Chinese high-end medical surgical instruments domestically replaced, encounter temporary ban in Brazil

Ask AI · What legal battles are behind the reversal of the Brazilian temporary injunction?

Author: Lu Yu

After the article on Monday this week titled “161 million! China’s high-end medical surgical equipment domestic substitution, collectively facing patent blockade,” once again, Chinese high-end medical surgical equipment companies have made new progress in the patent battle against Johnson & Johnson’s global blockade.

Second wave: Brazil injunction, lost and regained

On March 31, 2026, Roberto Nussinkis Mac Cracken, head of the Commercial Court of São Paulo State Court in Brazil, granted a stay of the special appeal and extraordinary appeal procedures in the case of Johnson & Johnson’s patent infringement against Scitech’s electric surgical stapler (case number: 1044824-18.2023.8.26.0100), suspending the effect of the previous judgment and restoring the previously granted temporary injunction emergency relief.

In short, this case experienced a reversal from the first-instance court granting a temporary injunction, which was overturned on appeal, then the special appeal restored the injunction, and then another reversal.

The core of this patent dispute’s eye of the storm is actually a local battle in Johnson & Johnson’s patent blockade against Chinese high-end medical surgical equipment manufacturers.

The defendant Scitech is actually a client of Jiangsu Fenghe Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. (Fenghe Medical) in Brazil. The impact of the temporary injunction actually targets Fenghe Medical, which has cooperation with Scitech, as well as other Chinese manufacturers collaborating with Scitech.

Regarding the patent dispute between Johnson & Johnson and Fenghe Medical, PRIP (Patent Rights and Innovation Protection) has reported multiple times. In 2019, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Fenghe Medical at the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, involving four patents with a total claimed amount of nearly 50k yuan.

Source: Tianyancha

The involved patents include the invention patent ZL200410087485.9 for “surgical stapler with a link gear transmission mechanism”; patent ZL200610126469.5 for “a staple cartridge for forming staples with different forming heights”; patent ZL200680035337.X for “surgical anastomosis and cutting device and its use method”; and patent ZL200810131706.6 for “surgical stapler.”

Moreover, in 2018, Johnson & Johnson also initiated litigation against Fenghe Medical in the Netherlands, which was settled in June 2023.

Meanwhile, Fenghe Medical’s IPO journey on the STAR Market has begun.

However, Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates soon filed three more infringement lawsuits against Fenghe Medical in Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, ultimately claiming 53.9 million yuan in compensation, aiming to create obstacles for Fenghe Medical’s IPO.

Eventually, in August 2024, Fenghe Medical withdrew its IPO.

Therefore, this is also the reason mentioned in the previous article for why Fenghe Medical has initiated multiple invalidity requests against one of its patents in China since 2020, until this patent was declared invalid on January 19 of this year—an underlying struggle between patent incentives and counter-incentives.

The dispute in Brazil is a microcosm of the global offensive and defensive strategies of these two companies.

On July 17, 2025, the Second Commercial Court of São Paulo State Court in Brazil issued a first-instance judgment, with judicial appraisal commissioned by the court confirming that Scitech’s Altus electric stapler falls entirely within the scope of Johnson & Johnson’s patent PI 0807365-1, constituting patent infringement and unfair competition. The court ordered Scitech to immediately cease production, sales, import/export, and storage of Altus products, recall products on the market, and pay 50k reais in moral damages, with additional economic losses to be calculated separately. At the same time, a first-instance temporary injunction was granted to prevent further sales and avoid further losses.

On December 10, 2025, the São Paulo State Court of Appeals issued a disruptive ruling. The appellate court found that the first-instance court limited the defendant’s defense rights: it did not allow Scitech to claim patent invalidity in the infringement lawsuit, and rejected its request for additional appraisal, violating the principles of debate and the right to full defense. The court revoked the first-instance judgment, remanded for retrial, and the temporary injunction was lifted, allowing Altus to resume sales.

On March 27, 2026, Johnson & Johnson’s Brazilian agent, RNA Law, filed a special appeal against the overturning decision and urgently requested to suspend the effect, seeking to restore the temporary injunction. The appellant argued that Scitech had already filed an independent patent invalidity lawsuit in the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro, and it was unlawful to assert the same claim in the state court, which could cause conflicting judgments and waste judicial resources; moreover, the federal case had already established a valid patent through technical appraisal, which could serve as evidence in this case, making repeated appraisal unnecessary. Additionally, the appellate court’s revocation of the first-instance judgment lacked clear reasoning regarding the injunction, implicitly lifting it, which was seriously illegal.

On March 31, 2026, the Commercial Court of São Paulo State Court made a key ruling: it approved the special appeal’s request to suspend the effect and immediately restored the first-instance temporary injunction. The court recognized that Johnson & Johnson’s side had sufficient likelihood of success and urgent harm, and if the injunction was not restored, ongoing infringement would cause irreparable market damage. The ruling required Scitech to immediately cease production, sales, storage, and promotion of Altus within Brazil until the final judgment.

This case has multiple implications: first, it clarifies the division of responsibilities between the federal and state courts in Brazil: when a patent invalidity lawsuit has been filed at the federal level, the same issue cannot be re-litigated in the state court infringement case, protecting the right to defense and preventing procedural abuse; second, traditionally, Rio de Janeiro courts are known for granting injunctions more frequently, while São Paulo courts are favored by plaintiffs, but now São Paulo courts are also not hesitant to grant injunctions; third, Johnson & Johnson’s core argument for ultimately overturning the decision was that the federal court had issued a report confirming the patent’s validity, which is a key piece of evidence for winning the case; at the same time, the court recognized the urgency of the case, especially that lifting the injunction would cause irreparable harm to Johnson & Johnson.

It is understood that the success rate of such emergency applications in Brazilian courts is generally very low, around 1%.

This case provides important practical guidance for Chinese companies seeking patent protection in Brazil: the continuation of temporary injunctions and procedural remedies directly impact the effectiveness of rights enforcement; additionally, the rules for connecting invalidity and infringement procedures will significantly influence case outcomes and business decisions.