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 2025

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

A former Freshfields counsel and an ex-IBM counsel, who have joined forces at law firm Caldwell, say clients are increasingly sophisticated in their IP demands
Daniel Raymond, who will serve as head of client relations, tells Managing IP that law firms must offer ‘brave’ opinions if they want to keep winning new business
The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Gift this article