JURISDICTION REPORT: MEXICO
THE NEED FOR EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Pablo Fuentes and Alan Hidalgo Becerril, Coca & Becerril
Te experimental evidence accompanying a patent application is one of the most important parts of the specification, especially when it comes to biotechnology, pharmaceutical and chemical inventions, as this type of evidence helps people to understand in an applied manner the teachings of the invention. Te forms that this experimental evidence can take depend on the
technology for which protection is sought, and are almost infinite. To these authors’ knowledge, there is no regulation around the world that restricts to a specific format the manner in which an applicant should submit these experimental tests. In Mexico, the intellectual property regulation requires only that the
applicant has to demonstrate the best mode to carry out the invention, leaving as optional the filing of experimental evidence in cases in which it might be necessary (article 28 of the Mexican Industrial Property Law’s regulations). However, in practice, this lack of guidance in the law has meant
that Mexican examiners seem to have adopted a position that a lack of experimental evidence in a patent application’s specification is equivalent to a lack of inventive activity. In our opinion, that contradicts the definition of inventive activity in Mexican law, which only describes an evaluation of obviousness in light of prior art. Statistically the most common type of objection issued by Mexican
examiners is based on a lack of inventive activity due to the absence of sufficient examples in the specification (even if some examples are present). Tese objections are normally accompanied by a request for comparative tests between the closest prior art and the claimed invention. Tis goes beyond the obligations of applicants according to the law
and its regulations. Te argument of the examiners is that: “Tere must be an advantage/improvement of the invention over the prior art, and such an advantage should be credible for the full scope of the claims in light of the experimental evidence showed.” Arguments pointing out the invalidity of the examiners’ position have
proved to be very ineffective in dealing with these types of objections. Patent applications directed to protecting non-obvious alternative
ways of solving the same technical problem already solved by the prior art are almost a taboo theme right now in Mexico. Tis is because no technical advantage is present in this type of application, despite its possibly complying with the non-obviousness requirement established under Mexican law. Of course, the aim behind the strict position of the Mexican examiners
is to grant very solid Mexican patents. However, it is surprising that the examiners now ask for more technical evidence even if at least one embodiment of
the invention was already exemplified, without 82 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015
considering either how expensive and/or time-consuming additional experimental tests can be for the applicant, or the timeframes in which novel investigations inside the pharma and biotech industry develop. Additional experimental evidence is normally accepted during the
prosecution of Mexican applications but only as long as such evidence can be derived from the same experimental protocols described originally in the specification of the application. In view of
the prevailing situation, when Mexico represents an
attractive market for the applicant the best thing to do is to include in the original application strong experimental data that attempts to validate as much scope of the potential claims as possible. Tis could avoid unnecessarily delaying the prosecution of the patent application during the substantive examination stage. Likewise if, when draſting the original application, it is not possible to
include broad experimental evidence, a second desirable step should be at least to try to define in a broad manner a tentative experimental protocol that could be carried out aſter the filing of the original application, in order to generate the experimental results and file such experimental results upon the request of the Mexican patent office to demonstrate the inventive activity of the patent application.
Pablo Fuentes is patents coordinator at Becerril, Coca & Becerril. He can be contacted at:
pfuentes@bcb.com.mx Alan Hidalgo is technical engineer at Becerril, Coca & Becerril. He can be contacted at:
ahidalgo@bcb.com.mx
www.worldipreview.com
“MEXICAN EXAMINERS SEEM TO HAVE ADOPTED A POSITION THAT A LACK OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE IN A PATENT APPLICATION’S SPECIFICATION IS EQUIVALENT TO A LACK OF INVENTIVE ACTIVITY.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100