Mexico: Enablement in patent practice
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: 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.


Georgina Flores

OlivaresPedro Luis Ogazón No 17Col San Angel01000 México DFTel: +5255 53 22 30 00Fax: +5255 53 22 30

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Managing IP’s Max Walters appeared on the latest episode of ‘Two IPs in a pod’, a regular podcast hosted by the UK patent attorney body, to discuss AI, awards and more
Sources at law firms say they have spent more than three years waiting for IP regulations and explain how the delay is affecting their business
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article