Mexico: A closer look at post-filing data in patent applications

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

Mexico: A closer look at post-filing data in patent applications

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
specs-6500153-1280.jpg

Rommy Morales of OLIVARES explains the key elements to consider for submitting post-filing experimental evidence

Mexican patent law does not require experimental evidence covering every embodiment within the scope of a claim. However, it provides that that the description of the invention has to disclose the invention in a sufficiently clear and complete way to allow a person skilled in the art to make it, and the best method known to the applicant of carrying out the invention, as well as the information to support the industrial application of the invention. 

Therefore, even though the claims should be considered as commensurate in scope with a reasonable generalisation of the disclosed examples, in practice, when an application does not include experimental evidence for all the embodiments, examiners sometimes raise sufficiency of disclosure, clarity, support and/or inventive step objections.

When the above-mentioned objections are raised, examiners commonly object that the disclosure in the specification is not sufficiently complete and/or it does not contain the best-known method to perform the invention. Examiners also state that the inventive step cannot be recognised due to the experimental evidence provided in the application that does not demonstrate the technical effect.

Even though Mexican law provides that the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) may require the submission of additional or complementary information or documentation, it does not include any specific provision about post-filing submission of experimental data. Under the local practice, post-filing experimental evidence is normally accepted as long as the said evidence is filed along with the response to the substantive office action wherein the said objections were raised, and when the alleged technical effect is expressly disclosed in or can be inferred or derivable from the originally filed application. 

Finally, it is important to bear in mind that there is no precedent case law, such as jurisprudence, regulations or guidelines about this issue in Mexico, and thus the acceptance thereof would depend on the examiner overseeing examination of the application.

 

Rommy Morales

Biologist, OLIVARES

E: rommy.morales@olivares.mx

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP attorneys share how the Cox v Sony ruling impacts their counselling strategies, and if the case could influence how courts may assess liability for AI platforms
Natasha Daughtrey shares how firms can help their women litigators take the lead on trials, and why she is seeing a convergence of tech and life sciences disputes
The LMG Life Sciences Awards is thrilled to present the shortlist for the 2024 EMEA Awards
Having agreed to a cost cap in the landmark Emotional Perception AI case, the government should do the right thing and pay at least the bare minimum
Ruth Hoy will join the firm's IP practice alongside Huw Cookson, who will also become a partner
IP boutique firm says its platform will help navigate ‘scattered’ decisions by bringing case law, commentary and research under one umbrella
The latest round of promotions has contributed to a 21% rise in partner headcount in the past two years, with business leaders eyeing litigation and the UPC
João Negrão, EUIPO executive director, is joined by a seasoned official to reflect on three decades of stories
Sim & San, which secured the $16m victory for their client, previously led Communications Components Antenna to a $26m damages win in 2024
IP litigator Ruth Hoy has led the London office since 2022
Gift this article