Mexico: A closer look at post-filing data in patent applications
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Mexico: A closer look at post-filing data in patent applications

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
specs-6500153-1280.jpg

Rommy Morales of OLIVARES explains the key elements to consider for submitting post-filing experimental evidence

Mexican patent law does not require experimental evidence covering every embodiment within the scope of a claim. However, it provides that that the description of the invention has to disclose the invention in a sufficiently clear and complete way to allow a person skilled in the art to make it, and the best method known to the applicant of carrying out the invention, as well as the information to support the industrial application of the invention. 

Therefore, even though the claims should be considered as commensurate in scope with a reasonable generalisation of the disclosed examples, in practice, when an application does not include experimental evidence for all the embodiments, examiners sometimes raise sufficiency of disclosure, clarity, support and/or inventive step objections.

When the above-mentioned objections are raised, examiners commonly object that the disclosure in the specification is not sufficiently complete and/or it does not contain the best-known method to perform the invention. Examiners also state that the inventive step cannot be recognised due to the experimental evidence provided in the application that does not demonstrate the technical effect.

Even though Mexican law provides that the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) may require the submission of additional or complementary information or documentation, it does not include any specific provision about post-filing submission of experimental data. Under the local practice, post-filing experimental evidence is normally accepted as long as the said evidence is filed along with the response to the substantive office action wherein the said objections were raised, and when the alleged technical effect is expressly disclosed in or can be inferred or derivable from the originally filed application. 

Finally, it is important to bear in mind that there is no precedent case law, such as jurisprudence, regulations or guidelines about this issue in Mexico, and thus the acceptance thereof would depend on the examiner overseeing examination of the application.

 

Rommy Morales

Biologist, OLIVARES

E: rommy.morales@olivares.mx

 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers reveal how they inform clients about the IP implications of fast-moving private equity deals
View the Social Impact EMEA Awards 2024 shortlist and join us on September 12 at The Waldorf Hotel in London
James Tumbridge talks about advising the government on AI and why his day could start with the police and end with legal networking
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows that the IP ambitions of Asian full-service firms and a life sciences focus in the US have prompted lateral moves
Michelle Lue-Reid has joined the IP business as its chief transformation officer and will look to implement major change initiatives across member firms
Chad Landmon, who joins in Washington DC, hopes to expand the firm’s Hatch-Waxman practice
The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Gift this article