Product-by-process claims: a Mexican approach

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Product-by-process claims: a Mexican approach

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
idea-5060233.jpg

Erika Rocío Santillán of Olivares explains the legal position in Mexico with regard to the protection of inventions through the identification of a novel technical step in the manufacturing process

There are certain inventions in which it is impossible to define a claimed product other than in terms of a manufacturing process. The claims protecting these inventions are known as product-by-process claims.

In other words, these products are defined by a manufacturing process which includes a technical step that confers technical characteristics to the product, which in the same way provides novelty and inventive step to the matter sought to be protected.

Product-by-process claims have the following structure: "Product X characterised by A, B, C..., which is prepared/obtained/obtainable by process Y.”

Mexican practice

In Mexico, product-by-process claims are allowed in practice. The country’s previous Industrial Property Law, which applies to all patent applications filed in Mexico before November 5 2020, states in its Article 45, Section I that the following can be protected: "The claims of a specific product and those related to processes especially conceived for its manufacture or use [emphasis added].”

Likewise, the current Federal Industrial Property Protection Law, which entered into force on November 5 2020, mentions in its Article 55 that "if the subject matter of the patent is a process, the patent confers the right to prevent other persons from using that process and from using, selling, offering for sale or importing the product obtained directly from that process, without their consent [emphasis added].”

Product-by-process claims usually confuse inventors and applicants. Thus, when a product is defined by its manufacturing method, it is relevant to review whether the product obtained is identical to other products that are already known, which will help us not to lose sight of the novelty of the product itself.

Onus on the applicant

It is a reality in several jurisdictions that when a product-by-process-type invention is sought to be protected, it is the applicant's responsibility to provide evidence that the parameters of the process give rise to the claimed product. This is achieved by demonstrating the clear differences in the technical characteristics (properties) of the products.

Finally, it should be noted that a product is not patentable if it is not new, even if the products are manufactured by different processes.

Even for a new product, if the process can be used to manufacture a different product, the manufacturing process and the product produced by the process would be reviewed as two different inventions and would be subject to restrictions.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

McDermott Will & Schulte lawyers explore why the UPC is seeing rapid adoption by medtech for fast-moving disputes, while pharma and biotech take a cautious, selective approach over revocation risks
IP firms may be growing more comfortable with external capital, but uncertainty over who could ultimately own the business is complicating the investment pitch
The former Western District of Texas judge addresses perceptions of his courtroom, reveals what comes next as he returns to practice at A&O Shearman and explains why marathon running is ‘cathartic’
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition says it has been blocked from hosting its annual event in the city, ending a long tradition of holding the gathering in the days leading up to INTA’s flagship event
The ITC is a powerful tool for litigators, practitioners say, as the threat of an exclusion order on a critical tech component could mean disrupting the entire data centre's operations
Anna Toh plans to expand Rajah & Tann’s soft IP capabilities, leveraging its Southeast Asia network to support clients on cross-border portfolio management and commercial strategy
The Canadian boutique’s new IP lead says he wants to build a tech-enabled IP practice aimed at giving startups senior expertise away from the traditional ‘big law’ set-up
Qantm IP’s acquisition of Henry Goh & Co shows shifting attitudes towards private equity, with firms increasingly viewing external backing as a normal route to expansion rather than a source of concern
The firm’s involvement in prominent AI cases drew litigator Christian Mammen to join from Womble Bond Dickinson, as US firms continue to bolster AI-focused practices
Two judicial appointments confirmed in Paris and Mannheim, while cross-border injunctions and high-profile procedural rulings keep major patent practices occupied
Gift this article