Argentina: Legal protection of innovations

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Argentina: Legal protection of innovations

When it comes to protecting new technologies, it may be difficult to decide between trade secret and patent protection.

Trade secret regime

The reasons for keeping knowledge secret include the time and costs of obtaining the patent, the payment of annual taxes and the limited duration of the patent right.

The risk of a patent application being rejected should be assessed, as in this case there is a public disclosure, and the protection of secrecy is therefore lost.

Advantages of the patent system

The trade secret regime does not constitute a foolproof form of protection, because in many cases it is impossible to prevent knowledge from reaching competitors; or due to the lack of exclusivity, the same technology might be developed independently by others (for example, through the process of reverse engineering.)

Additionally, if a third party obtains by themselves certain information that was being kept confidential and decides to patent it, the resulting patent will be completely valid, and the person will be able to bring legal actions against any other person that exploits such information without the former's consent (even if it were the first person that had developed and obtained said knowledge.)

Previous possession of the invention

While the inventor does not disclose their invention, they may opt – as expressed in the above paragraph – for the protection conferred by the regulations that protect industrial secrecy.

"Previous possession" is when the inventor prefers to exploit their invention as a "manufacturing secret" or "industrial secret" instead of opting for protection through the invention patent regime. In countries such as Germany, France and Spain, it has been admitted that the second inventor could not claim their patent in order to cease the exploitation by the first inventor.

So what does the applicable Argentine legislation stipulate in this regard? It remains silent regarding the so called "right of personal possession", for which reason we consider that said rights are non-existent under our legal regime.

The denial of the "right of previous possession" increasingly encourages inventors to disclose their creations by starting the patent procedure, thus contributing to the technological progress.

Daniel R Zuccherino


Obligado & CiaParaguay 610, 17th FloorC1057AAH, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 11 4114 1100Fax: +54 11 4311 5675admin@obligado.com.arwww.obligado.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Kilpatrick’s managing partner for San Francisco discusses taking the longer route to partnership, the importance of female mentors, and strengthening office culture
Home-working and grace periods at IP offices have been announced, while Managing IP understands Iran’s IP office is out of service
With INTA 2026 just two months away, London-based IP practitioners offer tips on making the most out of the city
New platform, which covers SEPs for the Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7 standards, includes 10 patent owners
The Texas-based IP litigation hires take King & Spalding’s partner appointments from pre-merger Winston & Strawn up to 12 this year
Sunny Su explains how her team overcame challenges with orchard evidence collection to secure a favourable plant variety decision from China’s top court
Flexible working firm continues trajectory from 2025 with appointment of Matthew Grant and Letao Qin
Anousha Davies, associate and trademark attorney at Birketts, unpicks how the university’s reputation enabled it to see off a proposed trademark for ‘Cambridge Rowing’
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
Regulatory changes and damages risks are prompting Canadian firms and clients to opt for settlements in generic and biosimilar cases
Gift this article