Mexico: Enablement in patent practice

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: Enablement in patent practice

Enablement was considered in Mexico in the amendments to the Mexican patent law on October 1 1994 and again on September 20 2010.

With the amendment of October 1 1994, the Mexican Law required a description of the invention that shall be clear and complete to be fully understood and where appropriate to serve as a guide for a person with average skill in the art to make it. Furthermore, the description shall mention the best method known by the applicant to carry out the invention when this is not clear from the description thereof.

The amendment of September 20 2010 also considered the inclusion of information that exemplifies the industrial utility of the invention. However, this information is only required when the description is not sufficiently clear or complete for a person with average skill in the art to fully understand the invention and to be able to make it.

Despite this guidance and the fact that the Patent Office is supposed to recognise in good faith an applicant's disclosure (it not being not examiner's role to determine the veracity of the application), lately the most common practice in Mexico is to consider as unclear any subject matter that has been claimed in the invention but has not been exemplified or experimentally demonstrated in the description. Some examiners accept complementary experimental information during the substantive examination as long as there is a connector idea that allows the relation of that information with what is described. However, since there is no guideline for examiners in the Patent Office, there is no certainty as to how overcome these objections.

In conclusion, it is not mandatory to include examples as evidence of the industrial utility or enablement when applications include sufficient description of the invention, but in practice, some examiners object when examples or experimental evidence are not included.

flores

Georgina Flores


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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article