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

Andy Lee of Brandsmiths explains how firm secured a win for Peppa Pig over rival children’s character Wolfoo, in a case that centred on copied audio clips
Pedro Moreira outlines proposals by INPI that look set to open a discussion regarding biological materials, extracts, sequences, genetically edited plants, and computer programs
The combined firm, which has a newly appointed IP partner in London, brings together more than 3,500 practitioners across 52 offices, with flagship hubs in Seattle, London, Sydney and New York
A host of SEP-rich law firms, both leading arguments and as intervenors, are set to feature in the UK Supreme Court’s third FRAND episode, though one ground of appeal has been settled
Law firms are investing in generative engine optimisation and boosting their online presence in the hope of gaining a new client base
A decision on a licensing rate payable by Warner Bros and Paramount, and a survey outlining UK businesses’ lack of IP preparation ahead of launching abroad, were among other major talking points
A fresh wave of deals highlights why investors favour IP firms and why independent outfits may soon have to rethink their strategy
King & Spalding has now hired 15 partners from Winston Taylor and legacy firm Winston & Strawn in offices spanning Texas, San Francisco, and Chicago
Firm says its work with a nonprofit client could signal a sea change in how - and when - law firms enter the drug development process
Evan Lazerowitz, attorney in Robinson + Cole’s bankruptcy and reorganisation group, offers key takeaways for IP interested parties in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings
Gift this article