Mexico: Which pharmaceutical-related claims are allowable?
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Mexico: Which pharmaceutical-related claims are allowable?

According to the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL) the following types of pharmaceutical-related claims are exceptions to patentability:

  • biological and genetic material as found in nature;

  • the human body and the living matter constituting it.

and the following shall not considered as inventions:

  • forms of presentation of information;

  • methods of surgical or therapeutic treatment or diagnosis applicable to the human body, and those relating to animals; and

  • the juxtaposition of known inventions or mixtures of known products, their variation of use, form, unless they actually are combined or merged to obtain an industrial result or a non-evident use to a person versed in the subject matter.

Furthermore, the Mexican practice also objects to product-by-process (in most cases) and omnibus claims.

According to IMPI's Patent Gazette, the following subject matters have been granted:

  • pharmaceutical product claims;

  • formulations and compositions claims;

  • pharmaceutical combination claims;

  • dosage claims;

  • salt claims;

  • polymorph claims; and

  • pharmaceutical use claims (Swiss-type claims and EPC2000 format).

Nevertheless, all the above types of claims usually face objections involving lack of novelty and inventive step. These objections are usually overcome by drafting the claim in terms of its technical features, and not based on its function or result and supporting it with the examples and proofs including in the description.

At present, dosage and polymorph claims are not well accepted based on the argument that they do not involve an inventive step and thus it is necessary to point out in a clear and concise manner in the description the unexpected effect of said dosage or polymorph, which must be duly supported by examples and comparative examples.

Herrera_Pedro

Pedro Herrera


OlivaresPedro Luis Ogazón No 17Col San Angel01000 México DFTel: +5255 53 22 30 00Fax: +5255 53 22 30 01olivlaw@olivares.com.mxwww.olivares.com.mx

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers weigh in on the USPTO’s request for comment on the effects of AI on prior art analysis and obviousness determinations
A vast majority of corporates – especially smaller businesses – rely on a trusted referral when instructing external counsel, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Munich Regional Court ruled that Lenovo was an unwilling licensee and had engaged in ‘holdout’ tactics
Technological innovation should play a critical role in advancing sustainable practices, argues Justin Delfino, global head of IP and R&D at Evalueserve
Ewan Grist of Bird & Bird, who acted for Lidl in its trademark victory against Tesco, reveals some of the lessons brand owners can take from the judgment
Dolby’s lawsuit at the Delhi High Court follows a record win by Ericsson earlier this year against the same defendant
Tee Tan, chief information officer at the owner of several IP firms, says to avoid tech just for the sake of it and explains how his company builds in-house tools
Regardless of whether the FTC’s ban on non-competes goes into effect, businesses should stop relying on these agreements
Mary Till, a former legal advisor at the USPTO who has joined Finnegan this week, is looking forward to providing clients with a USPTO perspective
Gift this article