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

Niall Trainor, managing attorney at Hasbro, says brands could boost their business with careful portfolio culling
A decision by the Paris Central Division will lead to more IP work for outside counsel, say sources
Courts are encouraged to deliver judgments within three months of a trial, but that deadline has been missed in several recent cases
Lawyers at Maiwald and Sterne Kessler analyse how patents with claims directed to medical treatments are handled in the US and in Europe
Michael DeVincenzo explains how he and his team convinced the Federal Circuit to find in favour of his client in a patent case against Salesforce
Funders and a litigator explain how litigation funding disclosure requirements could affect their business
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Discussions about whether to seek director reviews can come up frequently with clients, even though actual grant rates are rare
In the latest episode, we discuss why IP firms might be attractive to PE investors and bring you the latest news on submissions for next year’s IP STARS rankings
Back-to-back PE deals for IP firms in recent years show that IP firms are sitting on goldmines, so traditional partnerships should be open to change
Gift this article