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 2025

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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article