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 site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The executive director lost a key vote at a meeting of the EUIPO management and budget committee on Tuesday, November 22
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms’ reliance on billable hours is hampering diversity and wellbeing, suggests INTA, but both sides of the profession must club together to enact change
In his first interview in the role, Klaus Grabinski outlines how the UPC will deal with outstanding issues such as potential conflicts and problems with the CMS
Daniel Chew speaks to Managing IP about his plans for the coming year and how UK attorneys can seize the day at the UPC
It’s easy for lawyers to drag their clients to court, but settling disputes amicably could often be a win-win scenario for everyone
Qualcomm’s vice president and legal counsel, John Scott, reflects on the rise of litigation finance and what he wants in private practice lawyers
Klaus Grabinski addressed the controversy over part-time UPC judges in an exclusive interview with Managing IP
Counsel at four US law firms say forming relationships, sending legal updates and demonstrating data have helped them snag a lot of work
Blockchain-related patent applications are on the rise, but could run into Section 101 challenges