Mexico: Applying the experimental use exception in patent infringements

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

Mexico: Applying the experimental use exception in patent infringements

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
greyson-joralemon-9ibqihqhuhc-unsplash.jpg

Armando Arenas of Olivares explores how Mexico has interpreted the experimental and academic use exception

For many years, the experimental and academic use exception was incorrectly applied in Mexico to declare third parties who imported raw materials while the patents that protected the correlative active principle were still in force, as infringers. This is because the companies alleged that, according to their import requests, these authorisations had been granted by the sanitary authorities for experimentation purposes without commercial aims.

Therefore, to avoid patent infringement, it was sufficient for the defendant to exhibit the import authorisation granted by the sanitary authority (Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks COFEPRIS). The import authorisation also had to include a legend stating that the importation had been authorised for experimentation purposes.

Additionally, some infringing companies enforced the Roche-Bolar exception and the experimental use exception at the same time, generating confusion in the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). The institute chose to declare the raw material importing companies (trading companies) as infringers, considering that their activity was only for commercial purposes and denied the infringement if the defendants proved that they were pharmaceutical companies applying the benefit of the Roche-Bolar exception.

Recently, in cases handled by Olivares, two different circuit courts have clarified the correct interpretation of the experimental and academic use exception. The rulings  stated, in accordance with the most basic rules of the burden of proof, that it was not enough to exhibit an import permit that indicates that the destination of the raw material to consider that such exception is applicable. It stated that it was however necessary to demonstrate with another type of evidence, as they constitute their own facts and it was the defendants who asserted the said exception, which is the type of activity that was specifically carried out for purely experimental purposes. These new criteria have now caused the IMPI to correctly apply this exception for the benefit of the patent protection system and its holders.

 
Armando ArenasPartner, OlivaresE: armando.arenas@olivares.mx  

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Julia Bishop is director of IP at Twilio in the US
Hellberg is an IP director at Essity in Sweden
Palińska is the business & IP law lead at CD Projekt Red in Poland
Teemu Itälä is head of legal and compliance for technology standards at Nokia in Finland
Schwitulla is the head of litigation management at Nokia in Germany
David Degen is senior IP counsel at Novartis, Switzerland
Demetrio Roberto Cavicchia is an IP director at Angelini Pharma in Italy
Almeida is the IP group leader at Bosch in Brazil
Amanda Luz is brand protection manager - global at Adidas in the US
Samantak Ghosh is vice president of IP at Avere Therapeutics in the US
Gift this article