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

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 our site

In-house and private practice counsel discuss issues with pre-grant opposition in India, including the rise of non-speaking orders and straw man filings
The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
The USPTO cancelled ‘Galavava’ and 'Surfstar Wake' and partly cancelled ‘Heika’ this month
We have published all the 2022 rankings of the leading firms for patent litigation and protection work
In-house and private practice counsel say UK judges have raised the bar for preliminary injunction requests
António Campinos will serve another five years as EPO president – perhaps he’ll calm unrest at the office in that time
LGBTQ IP lawyers say using rainbow colours and posting solidarity messages on social media must be followed by concrete action
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree