All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Mexico: Applying the experimental use exception in patent infringements

Sponsored by olivares-400px.jpg
greyson-joralemon-9ibqihqhuhc-unsplash.jpg

Armando Arenas of Olivares explores how Mexico has interpreted the experimental and academic use exception

For many years, the experimental and academic use exception was incorrectly applied in Mexico to declare third parties who imported raw materials while the patents that protected the correlative active principle were still in force, as infringers. This is because the companies alleged that, according to their import requests, these authorisations had been granted by the sanitary authorities for experimentation purposes without commercial aims.

Therefore, to avoid patent infringement, it was sufficient for the defendant to exhibit the import authorisation granted by the sanitary authority (Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks COFEPRIS). The import authorisation also had to include a legend stating that the importation had been authorised for experimentation purposes.

Additionally, some infringing companies enforced the Roche-Bolar exception and the experimental use exception at the same time, generating confusion in the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). The institute chose to declare the raw material importing companies (trading companies) as infringers, considering that their activity was only for commercial purposes and denied the infringement if the defendants proved that they were pharmaceutical companies applying the benefit of the Roche-Bolar exception.

Recently, in cases handled by Olivares, two different circuit courts have clarified the correct interpretation of the experimental and academic use exception. The rulings  stated, in accordance with the most basic rules of the burden of proof, that it was not enough to exhibit an import permit that indicates that the destination of the raw material to consider that such exception is applicable. It stated that it was however necessary to demonstrate with another type of evidence, as they constitute their own facts and it was the defendants who asserted the said exception, which is the type of activity that was specifically carried out for purely experimental purposes. These new criteria have now caused the IMPI to correctly apply this exception for the benefit of the patent protection system and its holders.

 
Armando ArenasPartner, OlivaresE: armando.arenas@olivares.mx  

More from across our site

Brand owners bemoan counterfeiters’ latest wheeze and say enforcement authorities should get more involved
Counsel at Bayer, Novartis, a generics company and other firms debate what the WTO’s patent waiver will mean in the short and long term
The patent office report found that stakeholders were still divided over subject matter eligibility but broadly wanted clarity
The UKIPO published the results of its consultation on AI and IP today, June 28, and plans to shake up the rules on copyright and data
IP consultancy Brandit is the first European intellectual property firm to announce plans for an augmented-reality presence
Patent owners and implementers weigh in on the PTAB Reform Act – its provisions, what it missed and its likelihood of success
Counsel from Blackbird, Unified Patents, two other companies and a law firm debate what new ways to avoid Fintiv mean for petitioners and patent owners
Counsel at six companies say experience, technical expertise and persuasion are some of the most important skills at the board
Nokia beats Oppo in Germany; Australia and EPO to continue PPH; Ed Sheeran nets nearly £1m in legal fees; Google backs down in €500m French appeal
Brand owners say Amazon’s new anti-counterfeit team up is welcome but warn that such partnerships are often made on the e-commerce platform’s terms
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree