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

Cookies Settings

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

Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
The managing partner gave up an equity partnership track in New York to build a practice in India. More than a decade later, she discusses entrepreneurship, leadership, and why women should not wait before taking the next step
Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
Gift this article