Mexico: Applying the experimental use exception in patent infringements

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Mexico: Applying the experimental use exception in patent infringements

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
greyson-joralemon-9ibqihqhuhc-unsplash.jpg

Armando Arenas of Olivares explores how Mexico has interpreted the experimental and academic use exception

For many years, the experimental and academic use exception was incorrectly applied in Mexico to declare third parties who imported raw materials while the patents that protected the correlative active principle were still in force, as infringers. This is because the companies alleged that, according to their import requests, these authorisations had been granted by the sanitary authorities for experimentation purposes without commercial aims.

Therefore, to avoid patent infringement, it was sufficient for the defendant to exhibit the import authorisation granted by the sanitary authority (Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks COFEPRIS). The import authorisation also had to include a legend stating that the importation had been authorised for experimentation purposes.

Additionally, some infringing companies enforced the Roche-Bolar exception and the experimental use exception at the same time, generating confusion in the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). The institute chose to declare the raw material importing companies (trading companies) as infringers, considering that their activity was only for commercial purposes and denied the infringement if the defendants proved that they were pharmaceutical companies applying the benefit of the Roche-Bolar exception.

Recently, in cases handled by Olivares, two different circuit courts have clarified the correct interpretation of the experimental and academic use exception. The rulings  stated, in accordance with the most basic rules of the burden of proof, that it was not enough to exhibit an import permit that indicates that the destination of the raw material to consider that such exception is applicable. It stated that it was however necessary to demonstrate with another type of evidence, as they constitute their own facts and it was the defendants who asserted the said exception, which is the type of activity that was specifically carried out for purely experimental purposes. These new criteria have now caused the IMPI to correctly apply this exception for the benefit of the patent protection system and its holders.

 
Armando ArenasPartner, OlivaresE: armando.arenas@olivares.mx  

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Shem Otanga discusses the importance of curiosity and passion, and why he would have loved to have been a professional recording artist
Practitioners say the Bombay High Court shouldn’t have refused well-known trademark recognition for TikTok simply because the app is banned in India
In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Novo Nordisk losing patent rights covering Ozempic in Canada and a US Supreme Court decision favouring Ed Sheeran were also among the top talking points
The court will hand down its ruling in Iconix v Dream Pairs on Tuesday, June 24, in a case that concerns post-sale confusion
Developments included a stay in a row concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction and a timeline for the rollout of the long-awaited new CMS
Jorg Thomaier, who has been head of IP at the German pharma company since 2010, will leave later this year and hand the reins to the company’s head of patents
Companies must conduct thorough IP due diligence – even if it may not be mandatory
Gift this article