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

The Life Sciences Awards is thrilled to present the shortlist for the 2026 Americas Awards
From Türkiye to Poland and Nigeria, firms with deep local roots continue to dominate the top tier, proving that market expertise can outweigh international scale in many CEE, Middle Eastern and African jurisdictions
Former Hoyng Rokh partner Simon Dack takes a leading PMAC role as busy firms continue to jostle for position
Franck Fougere, founder and managing partner of Ananda IP in Thailand, describes how the firm has developed a reputation for patent work and why he believes IP practice is set to change
After two decades at Kass International, Geetha Kandiah discusses the lessons that shaped her career, building an inclusive regional firm, and AI opportunities
Manisha Singh of LexOrbis discusses the need for commercial alignment with clients and why IP lawyers need to have curiosity at their core
As firms expand into integrated IP services, recent hires show the model's appeal – but high-profile departures reveal how quickly questions of depth and durability can emerge
In-house counsel say private practice firms either aren’t conveying sustainability messaging or simply ‘don’t care’, but a mindful approach to the topic could swing pitches
With patent filings stagnant, fewer clients litigating and market consolidation at play, Canadian firms are considering how to challenge the established players
IPH’s strategy of integrating acquired businesses into its larger premium brands, may offer an early signal of how externally funded IP firms will pursue scale, efficiency and market strength
Gift this article