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

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

Another IP litigator joins Winston & Strawn in Dallas as firm seeks to keep pace with ‘rapid’ growth of Texas market
Anthony O'Malley will replace Andrew Blattman at IPH, which owns several large IP firms across Australia, Asia and Canada
Barry Greenbaum, partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky, explains how in-house teams can update their approach to brand development, and where AI can add value
Christine Chiramel, who joins a full-service law firm after 17 years of working at specialist firms, says she’s excited to explore how corporate commercial issues are blurring into IP
Practitioners say increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of India’s most popular IP litigation forum to around $2 million would spark unpredictability and make it difficult for SMEs to benefit
The Spain-based firm has appointed an industry veteran to lead the group, which it hopes will strengthen its ability to support clients in ‘disruptive technologies’
Shaina Haria, a final-seat trainee at an international law firm’s UK office, shares how she fell in love with IP and why the area of law has changed the way she views the world
Now in its sixth edition, the IP Case Law Conference was focussed on the notion of ‘growing through change’
Nick Redfearn and Khanh Nguyen of Rouse discuss Vietnam’s latest identification in the 2026 Special 301 Report and how the country is taking genuine steps to meet US expectations
Tatiana Campello reflects on 30 years of practising at the firm, and urges women IP attorneys to think beyond the day-to-day
Gift this article