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

News of EasyGroup failing in its trademark infringement claim against ‘Easihire’ and Amgen winning a key appeal at the UPC were also among the top talking points
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL EMEA Awards by February 16 2026
Edward Russavage and Maria Crusey at Wolf Greenfield say that OpenAI MDL could broaden discovery and reshape how clients navigate AI copyright disputes
The UPC has increased some fees by as much as 32%, but firms and their clients had been getting a good deal so far
Meryl Koh, equity director and litigator at Drew & Napier in Singapore, discusses an uptick in cross-border litigation and why collaboration across practice areas is becoming crucial
The firm says new role will be at the forefront of how it delivers value and will help bridge the gap between lawyers, clients and tech
Qantm IP’s CEO and AI programme lead discuss the business’s investment and M&A plans, and reveal their tech ambitions
Controversial plans were scrapped by the Commission earlier this year after the Parliament had previously backed them
Lawyers at Spoor & Fisher provide an overview of how South Africa is navigating copyright and consent requirements to improve access to works for blind and visually impaired people
Gillian Tan explains how she balances TM portfolio management with fast-moving deals, and why ‘CCP’ is a good acronym to live by
Gift this article