Trade Secrets 2026 Comparisons

The main law governing the protection of trade secrets is the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (LFPPI). This form of protection is described by the Law as any information which has industrial or commercial application, and its controller has adopted means or enough systems to preserve its confidentiality and restricted access.

The protection given by law follows the lines and should be interpreted under article 10bis of the Paris Convention, Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement and Article 20.70 of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). 

Furthermore, judicial precedents have considered the protection of industrial secrets in the sense that in most cases they will be comprised within a franchise agreement in the form of “know-how”, and that as long as it produces a commercial advantage against competitors, technical or commercial information may be considered an industrial secret.

Under Mexican IP law, there is no specific statutory schedule of types of information that may be protected as trade secrets. Instead, a person seeking to preserve information and obtain trade secret protection before a court as such should ensure that the information possesses the following characteristics:

• it has industrial or commercial application;
• its use produces a competitive or economic advantage over competitors;
• it is not generally known or easily accessible to others operating within the relevant industry or business sector; and
• the information holder has taken sufficient steps to preserve its confidentiality and restrict access.

Because trade secret protection is determined based on the above criteria, analysis of protection must be on a case-by-case basis. The information holder must be prepared to prove not only the competitive and economic advantage over competitors that the secret grants, but also that the measures adopted to protect the secret distinguish it from the rest of the information handled by the organisation.

Under the specifications established above, courts have considered multiple types of information as protectable under trade secrets law, including: 

• industry-specific knowledge of a franchise business;
• the fabrication process of a pharmaceutical product;
• information related to instruments, processes, methodology, or even location of infrastructure used in the oil industry; and
• technical and commercial information that places its owner in a position of advantage.

Considering the above, a trade secret may be found in several forms, including logistics route maps, marketing strategies, processed databases or formulas for food and beverages.

It is important to consider that neither the law nor judicial precedent bar the possibility of such information being produced by AI, unlike other forms of IP protection.

As previously mentioned, under Mexican IP law, information protected as a trade secret must comply with the following requirements.

• the information must have an industrial or commercial application;
• such an application must produce a competitive or economic advantage over competitors;
• such application and advantage must not be of common knowledge or easy access for people within that area of business;
• the controller of the information must have adopted enough means to preserve its confidentiality and access; and
• information must be included in physical documents or stored by electronic or magnetic means, or on film or microfilm, or in any other viable form.

Mexican IP law considers that for information to be considered a protectable secret, the information holder must adopt means or systems which are sufficient to preserve its confidentiality and restrict access to the information. Neither the LFPPI nor its bylaws establish what constitutes reasonable measures to preserve confidentiality or how this should be interpreted. 

As courts have not yet produced a public decision analysing this issue, in order to be able to prove the standard of protection to a court, it is advisable to establish a superior level of protection for this information, both contractually and technologically.

In practice, this means that an information holder should be able to identify the specific person(s) that will have access to the trade secrets and, contractually, specify the existence and kind of protectable information and link it to its specific users. A superior technological standard for access to this information should be used in comparison to the rest of the information used by the general public and employees of the organisation.

If the information was clearly labelled as an industrial secret, and therefore all recipients of the disclosed information are in the clear understanding that the information is a trade secret, then the protection should not be harmed, and any employee that has been informed of the secrecy of the information has the duty to not disclose such information. 

To create a better frame for protection, it is advisable to only disclose the trade secret to a specific group and to use a superior standard of technological protection, in order to distinguish it from the rest of the information handled by any employee of the organisation.

Since the general purpose of trade secret protection is to prohibit the illegal appropriation or dissemination of the secret, independent discovery is an exception that does not typically constitute an infringement of a trade secret.

It is worth noting that independent discovery or reverse engineering does not terminate the protection that a trade secret is afforded under the law, unless it is made publicly available by the person or organisation that reverse engineered it. In such an event, the information will enter the public domain.

There is no specific protection under trade secrets for computer software, AI or technology more broadly. Information protected as a trade secret is treated generally instead of being differentiated by industry.

While the LFPPI was recently reformed in 2026 to introduce explicit sanctions for intellectual property infringements involving AI, there is no section of the law that precludes information that was produced by AI from being considered as a protectable trade secret. Therefore, unlike patents – which can only be protected if the inventor is a person – trade secrets may include information that was created by AI, and such information may still be protected.

There is not a statutory limitation for the duration of a trade secret protection, and therefore a secret is not considered to be in the public domain provided it is not disclosed. 

The LFPPI expressly considers that the disclosure of a secret by its controller for the purpose of obtaining licenses, permits, registrations or any other governmental authorisations does not void its trade secret protection, as long as the information remains referred to and protected as a secret.

Procedural law for both administrative and commercial litigation considers the protection of confidential information during litigation, and allows for the courts to handle it in such a manner as to avoid the disclosure of any relevant information.

It is advisable to apply as many forms as possible of technical protection for a trade secret as possible when disclosing the information to the authority, in order to prevent accidental disclosure.

Other than the aforementioned scenarios, the LFPPI does not consider any other exceptions when protecting trade secrets for disclosure. Therefore, in the case of any other disclosure – even if it is accidental – the information will be considered to have entered the public domain.

Pursuant to the LFPPI and in line with any other form of IP protection, the owner of a trade secret has the right to license or transfer the secret to a third party. As long as the trade secret is identified as such, the recipient of the secret is under the statutory obligation to maintain its confidentiality.

Unlike other forms of protection such as patents or designs, which have a specific statutory duration, trade secrets may have an extended or unlimited duration, as long as the information is kept in accordance with relevant protection standards.

Furthermore, the rights in favour of the secret’s owner exist not through registration but through the mechanisms deployed by the owner to keep the information confidential.

Finally, whether infringement has occurred depends not only on the information that is reproduced, but on whether such information was obtained illegitimately or not.

Asserting a trade secret in combination with other forms of IP protection, such as a patent, a design or even a sensory trademark (eg, a smell), is not prohibited by law. Naturally, if the secret is disclosed within a patent application, that information will no longer be considered protected as a secret. 

In light of the above, it is important to strategise on what to disclose in other forms of protection for it to not harm the secret’s protection. 

Furthermore, in the event of an infringement of both protected elements, which means that the violation of the overlapped right will not result in the acknowledgment of the secret’s violation. 

Each form of protection, even if overlapping, will have a different threshold for infringement. Consequently, the information holder must provide relevant evidence to prove the existence of the secret and of each overlapping right separately.

The LFPPI provides the legal framework for the violation of a right in the form of misappropriation of a secret. 

Furthermore, the LFPPI also states that a person who discloses a secret may constitute infringement, but only if the person has done so in the pursuit of an economic result or with a deliberate intention to harm or damage the owner of the secret.

Considering that the LFPPI establishes a duty of secrecy to licensees – such as authorised users or employees that have knowledge of the secret character of the information – a civil damages action may also be brought against such a person who discloses a trade secret, as long as there is evidence that a damage originated in the disclosure of the secret.

The misappropriation of a trade secret will be sanctioned as an administrative infringement with a fine of up to USD1,700,000. Beyond administrative infringements, the use, dissemination or appropriation of a trade secret may be criminally prosecuted.

Under the LFPPI, appropriating, acquiring, using or disseminating a secret by any means with the intention to cause harm or obtain profit can be considered criminally sanctioned behaviour. This includes a trade secret that is known because of the person’s job (an employee), position (a manager) or exercise of its profession (a consultant), business relation, or license, as long as the person was aware of its confidentiality.

It is important to underline that since these are criminal offences, both the objective and subjective aspects of the criminal hypothesis must be demonstrated. Therefore, it is relevant to take into account that Mexico’s procedure places the burden of proof in criminal procedure on the plaintiff, and thus both the use of the secret and the intent to cause harm or obtain profit must be demonstrated and not just presumed.

A criminal sanction for a trade secrets offence can carry a sentence of two to six years of imprisonment plus a maximum fine of USD2,000,000.

Furthermore, the LFPPI specifically allows for the information holder to pursue a civil action for damages for the violations to the secret. Therefore, the fact that a violation of the protection of a secret may be prosecuted criminally does not bar the possibility of pursuing a separate claim for damages.

Therefore, violations of trade secrets may be prosecuted independently as an administrative infringement, as a criminal offence, and as a civil action for damages.

Territoriality is procedurally relevant for Mexican law, therefore a point of contact must exist. 

Even when the protected information was produced in another jurisdiction, if the illegal appropriation of it can find a point of contact in Mexico, then it is possible to try an infringement or criminal action in Mexico. 

A point of contact may exist based on the location of the infringer, the place where the dissemination happened, or where the information was stored or shared. 

The law is also clear on the fact that the plaintiff can independently pursue a civil action to claim the damages produced as a result of the use or misappropriation of the trade secret. 

Article 163 Section II provides a specific definition for what misappropriation is: acquiring, using or disclosing a secret in a way that is against good uses and customs, implying unfair competition. It is noted that this includes the acquisition, use or disclosure through a third party that knew or had a reasonable motive to know that the secret was acquired against uses and customs.

In order to account for the broadness of this definition, the law also states that the following is not considered misappropriation:

• independent discovery;
• reverse engineering through a product or object legitimately placed in commerce, if the person doing the reverse engineering is under no confidentiality obligation or is unaware that the information is a secret; and
• the acquisition of the information through a third party that had no obligation of confidentiality or that was unaware that the information was an industrial secret.

The treatment of a trade secret when dealing with an employee is no different than that of a business partner. 

Under the LFPPI, employees have the obligation to abstain from disclosing any secrets that have been disclosed to them when they have been informed that the information constitutes a trade secret. Furthermore, under labour law, the employee has the obligation to meticulously guard the secrets to which they have access and, therefore, the disclosure of a secret by an employee is also a justifiable cause for termination.

Furthermore, while the law does not mention this expressly, if a secret is shared with an employee, it is advisable to handle the disclosure with the same technological restrictions that are inherent to the secret within the organisation, or else it could be interpreted that the restricted access to the information which is required by law was no longer kept.

There is no specific regulation that considers obligations related to trade secrets within joint ventures and therefore general rules that protect trade secrets are applicable. 

Protection granted to trade secrets comes from a contractual basis, and the LFPPI states that a person in contact with a trade secret as a result of a business relationship has the obligation to abstain from its disclosure.

While this statutory language is not specific for joint ventures, in such a scenario, if the secret is provided by one of the parties and the information is identified as a secret, then the other party is under the legal obligation to protect the secret. 

On the other hand, if the secret is produced as the result of the joint venture, then its ownership and form of use must be contractually agreed beforehand, in order to be able to identify it as such, protect it and then establish the rules for its use within the business relationship.

While there is no specific language in the law for industrial espionage, such a behaviour would be considered contrary to proper uses and customs of the industry. Therefore, the appropriation of information through espionage would be labelled as misappropriation and sanctioned criminally and administratively as has been described in 1.14 Criminal Liability. 

Furthermore, the law also states if any person hires an employee, a former employee, advisor, or a consultant of the owner of a secret for the purpose of obtaining the protected information, that person will be considered liable as well.

In Mexico, IP law does not establish a list of best practices to safeguard trade secrets. However, since the law requires the owner to adopt measures to preserve confidentiality and restrict access, certain practices have been adopted.

• Classification systems – companies identify and classify which information constitutes a trade secret, rather than general company information.
• Documentation and support – companies document the origin, creation and ownership of the information, particularly to ensure a "certain date". Additionally, this documentation also has the objective of demonstrating legal control over the secret, for which companies implement tracing records and maintain a clear chain of ownership regarding the licensed information.
• Establishing strong contractual obligations – companies tend to include confidentiality clauses, such as non-disclosure provisions, in all their employment agreements. Additionally, another best practice is the inclusion of rights assignments in relation to trade secrets.
• Development of manuals – designing trade secret protection guides or manuals that establish rules for employees on how to handle, use and disclose the company’s sensitive information, including employee exit protocols and periodic audits to identify vulnerabilities.

On the other hand, best practices vary depending on the industry and the nature of the information. In digital sectors, control is demonstrated through technological systems and traceability; in traditional industries, through documented origin and ownership; in consultancy, mainly through employee access and exit protocols; and in franchising, through clear agreements and licensing chains to ensure legal control across all parties.

Regardless of the industry, it is advisable to take advantage of technological means and procure a superior standard of protection for the information that is considered a trade secret, in order to make it easier to prove that the standard of protection was complied with and that, in contrast with the rest of the available information, such information was actively protected in a superior manner.

Exit interviews are not legally mandatory in Mexico. However, they are commonly used as part of the measures adopted by companies to preserve confidentiality and acknowledge access to trade secrets.

During the exit process, companies usually remind employees of their confidentiality obligations, request the return of company information and devices, and may request them to sign acknowledgments confirming that they have returned all confidential information and will continue to comply with their ongoing confidentiality obligations.

Employers may also ask about the employee’s new position to assess potential competitive risks. However, unless there is a specific contractual obligation, the employee is generally not required to disclose that information.

Yes, in Mexico there is a distinction between the employee’s general knowledge, experience and skills, and the information that constitutes a trade secret according to the law. 

The nature of the distinction mainly lies in the fact that general knowledge, experience, and skills belong to the employee and may continue to be used after termination since this is part of the employee’s constitutional right to work, while protectable trade secrets refer to specific information that is not generally known or easily accessible, that has an economic and competitive value, and most importantly is under the legal control of the company, and has been subject to measures to preserve its confidentiality according to the requirements established by the law.

Finally, under Mexican law there is not a recognition of the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Therefore, an employer cannot prevent an employee from working for a competitor only by arguing that the employee will inevitably use or disclose certain trade secrets. Instead, the employer must prove an actual misuse of trade secret information or have strong contractual obligations regarding this matter.

In Mexico, when companies hire employees from competitors, one of the best practices is to clearly state that the employee is being hired for his or her general knowledge, experience and skills, and not to obtain or use the former employer’s confidential information or trade secrets.

Additionally, before hiring, companies may include questions in the recruitment process to confirm if the candidate is subject to confidentiality obligations, or any post-employment restrictions, without asking to disclose any confidential information from the former employer.

On the other hand, companies usually include written acknowledgments where the employee confirms that they will not use or disclose any confidential information, documents, devices, client lists, formulas, or others belonging to the former employer.

Overall, the best practice is to document and trace the recruitment process, to ensure that the company hired the employee for their general knowledge and expertise, and adopted preventive measures to avoid receiving or using the competitor’s confidential information.

A civil lawsuit for trade secret theft is initiated by filing a civil claim before the competent court, mainly seeking damages. There is no mandatory prerequisite to first obtain a favourable administrative infringement resolution from the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI).

However, before filing any civil action, the claimant must ensure that the information meets the legal requirements to qualify as a trade secret under Mexican lP law. This means proving that the information is not public or easily accessible, that it provides a competitive or economic advantage, that the claimant has legal control over it, and that sufficient measures were adopted to preserve its confidentiality and restricted access.

On the other hand, although there are no formal preliminary steps required before filing the civil lawsuit, it is advisable to obtain evidence, identify the specific trade secret, document legal control, confirm the confidentiality measures adopted, preserve access records or communications, and assess whether precautionary measures are needed to stop the use or disclosure of the information.

In Mexico, the limitation period depends on the type of action. For administrative infringement actions before IMPI, the law does not establish a specific statute of limitations to initiate the claim. Therefore, there is no express limitation period for the filing of an administrative claim.

However, a civil damages based on an administrative infringement resolution must be filed within two years, counted from the date on which the administrative infringement resolution becomes enforceable.

The steps to initiate a trade secret lawsuit depends on the type of action to be filed. However, in both administrative and civil actions, the first steps are generally the following:

First, the owner should confirm that the information qualifies as a trade secret under Mexican IP law. This means identifying the specific information, proving that it is not public or easily accessible, that it provides a competitive or economic advantage, that the owner has legal control over it, and that measures were adopted to preserve its confidentiality and restricted access.

Once the above is confirmed, the owner should identify the type of action to be pursued. If the claimant chooses an administrative action, the claim is filed before IMPI. If the claimant seeks damages directly, the claim should be filed before the competent civil court, without necessarily obtaining a prior administrative infringement resolution from IMPI. If the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, the matter may also be pursued before the federal criminal authorities.

Furthermore, and when the type of action to be filed has been decided, the owner must obtain the evidence supporting the claim, including NDAs, confidentiality clauses, manuals, any type of agreements and documents showing legal control, as well as evidence of unauthorised acquisition, use or disclosure. 

The next step is for the claimant to prepare and file the initial claim, clearly identifying the trade secret, the defendant’s conduct, the applicable legal grounds, and the evidence offered.

Finally, it should be noted that it may be advisable to request precautionary measures before filing the claim to prevent the infringing conduct from continuing, although such measures may also be requested at any time during any of the proceedings.

There are limitations on the courts in which an owner may bring a trade secret claim depending mainly on the type of actions established by the law. There are three types of actions that may be initiated depending on the nature of the proceeding:

• Administrative action – trade secret infringement claims are generally initiated before IMPI, which is the authority that reviews the alleged infringement and, if applicable, impose the administrative sanctions. It is also possible to pursue a claim for damages through administrative proceedings, but only after a ruling has been issued in the infraction proceedings.
• Civil action – if the owner seeks damages, the claim may be filed before the competent civil courts. Under IP law, the owner may bring this type of claim directly before court, without necessarily having a prior administrative declaration from IMPI.
• Criminal action – if the conduct also constitutes a criminal offense under the Mexican IP law, the matter must be handled through the federal criminal system, through the Federal Prosecutor’s Office and Federal Criminal Courts.

Therefore, the applicable court will depend on whether the owner is seeking administrative sanctions, damages, or criminal liability.

Mexico does not have specialised courts exclusively for trade secret claims. However, administrative resolutions issued by IMPI may be challenged before the specialised chamber in intellectual property matters of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice.

In Mexico, pleading standards for trade secret claims are not subject to a formally heightened standard. However, in practice, there is an evidentiary burden from the moment the claim is filed.

This is mainly due to the administrative nature of the proceeding before the IMPI, and to the fact that, for the authority to determine and impose a sanction, the claimant bears the burden of proving that the alleged conduct was committed.

There are no rigid legal standards regarding the amount or type of evidence that must be submitted to initiate a trade secret claim. Therefore, an owner does not necessarily need to have all the hard evidence before filing the claim. 

Additionally, Mexican law does not use the concept of “information and belief”, thus the claimant may rely on reasonable indications and point this out in the claim, especially when certain type of evidence is under the defendant’s control.

Finally, although there is no formal heightened particularity standard for trade secret claims, the claimant must still comply with the requirements established by law to prove that the information constitutes a trade secret. In particular, the claimant should clearly identify the secret, show that the defendant knew or should have known that the information was confidential, and prove legal control over the information.

The mechanism for seizing products or evidence ex parte is the request for provisional measures, which aims to prevent the destruction of evidence and to stop alleged violations of intellectual property rights from continuing. 

This mechanism is established in the IP Law and is carried out by the IMPI. Provisional measures may be requested by a party or initiated ex officio. In criminal cases, it is even possible to request that the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP), through a judge’s order, conduct searches to secure evidence. 

In the case of IMPI, the requirements for this process to proceed are as follows. 

• The applicant must prove that they are the holder of the rights in question and demonstrate the existence of an infringement, that such infringement is imminent, that there is a risk of irreparable harm, and that there is a well-founded fear that evidence will be destroyed, concealed, lost, or altered.
• The applicant must submit a bond or deposit receipt to cover any harm that may be caused to the person against whom the measure has been requested. The amount of the bond may be increased if it proves insufficient at the time the measures are carried out.
• The applicant must also provide the necessary information to identify the goods, services, physical establishments, or digital platforms where infringements are occurring.

Finally, these provisional measures may be requested before a final judgement in the case.

Prior to filing a trade secret claim, an on-site inspection may be conducted to verify whether infringing conduct, such as the use of information classified as a trade secret, is taking place.

During such visits, IMPI may enter certain establishments or locations to gather evidence of activities that allegedly constitute infringements. 

Additionally, once an infringement claim has been initiated, parties may request the authority to issue a "requirement for information and evidence", requesting third parties to provide declarations and exhibit evidence to substantiate either the claims against the defendant or the defendant’s defences.

Article 169 of the LFPPI establishes the obligation of authorities to take necessary measures to prevent unauthorised disclosure to third parties not involved in the dispute and to ensure confidentiality. This may be done at the request of the trade secret owner or ex officio by the authority.

The specific mechanisms available include:

• restricting access to documents that are part of the proceedings;
• designating certain information and evidence as confidential, therefore limiting its access to legal representatives or experts; and
• the obligation established to the parties and judicial or administrative officials, witnesses, expert witnesses, and any other person involved in proceedings related to trade secrets.

Defences available in trade secret litigation include the following:

• Lack of confidentiality measures – adequate confidentiality measures were not implemented to safeguard the information, therefore the control standards required by the LFPPI were not met.
• Public domain – the information was already known in the industrial sector as it had been previously published in technical journals, patents, or on the internet.
• Know-how defense – in cases of trade secrets related to employment relationships, the information used constitutes part of the experience, technical knowledge (know-how), and skills acquired throughout a person’s professional career, and is not specific confidential information of the company.
• Independent discovery – the discovery of the trade secret was made independently, without having access to the information related to the trade secret owner.
• Authorised disclosure – the information was disclosed by the owner or by third parties with express consent.

In light of the above, some best practices for defendants include: 

• Documenting any independent discovery or discovery process as it happens.
• Demonstrating the public nature of the alleged trade secret through technical publications or patents.
• In employment cases, clearly distinguishing between general professional skills and know-how and specific company confidential information.
• Challenging the plaintiff’s confidentiality measures and internal controls according to the LFPPI.

Trade secret litigation proceedings in Mexico do not foresee dispositive motion to resolve a claim prior to trial. Instead, a claimant may request provisional measures, through which the IMPI may order the alleged infringer or third parties to suspend or cease infringing acts. These measures include:

• the withdrawal from circulation or a ban on the distribution of goods that infringe upon protected rights;
• the prohibition of the immediate marketing or use of products that violate a trade secret;
• the seizure (attachment) of goods, equipment, or materials related to the infringement;
• the suspension of the free movement of goods in customs (import, export, or transit) that constitutes a violation of the law;
• the suspension of services or the closure of an establishment when other measures are insufficient to prevent or avoid the violation of protected rights; and
• the blocking or removal of content in digital or electronic media.

Costs depend on the law firm and the type of case involved, particularly considering the volume of information and the specialists required.

Expected costs generally include legal fees and, for the plaintiff, government fees associated with the filing of the infringement action. Additionally, both parties may incur expenses related to the evidence they intend to present, including official fees and costs associated with expert opinions or technical studies.

Contingency litigation is a recognised concept in Mexico, but it is not that common in practice. 

Furthermore, litigation financing is available in Mexico. Although it is a rare practice, there are a few funds that provide this service.

Mexico’s legislation does not provide for trials by jury. All trials are presided over by judges, and oral proceedings are held only in criminal cases and in certain very specific administrative or civil cases. As a general rule, trials are conducted in writing.

In cases of infringement of industrial secrets, such violations are generally addressed through administrative proceedings. In this context, the administrative authority considers only testimonial or confessional evidence that serves as documentary proof; all other evidence must be written or otherwise physical in nature. However, in criminal proceedings involving industrial secrets before the criminal court, it is possible to call witnesses and have them testify.

The duration of any trial or proceeding is generally no less than 12 months, but much depends on the amount of evidence the parties offer and the type of evidence, since evidence that requires the authority to set a date for its examination and requires the parties’ attendance tends to significantly delay the trial.

In administrative proceedings (involving infringement of trade secrets), expert testimony may be offered, as long as it is supported by written evidence. Unlike in the second instance, there are no specific rules governing the offering of such evidence in the first instance. In the first instance, a party may generally provide a written expert opinion either when filing the complaint or in the response to the complaint. In the second instance, this evidence is offered together with a questionnaire; the opposing party may call its own expert and complete the questionnaire by adding more questions. If the responses to the questionnaires are contradictory, the court may request the assistance of a third expert (appointed by the court itself) to provide comments and respond to the questionnaires.

In criminal cases (involving crimes related to trade secrets), testimony is given orally and under oath. There are very formal rules for such cases, which are clearly established by law, covering everything from how the hearing is conducted to how questions must be phrased.

The estimated timeframe for a criminal case will depend on whether a private expert is retained or a court-appointed expert is assigned; in the latter case, it will depend on the expert’s availability and workload. It will also depend on the complexity of the case and the workload of the criminal justice authority. In some cases, the expert evaluation can delay the proceedings by up to a year, while in simpler cases involving a private expert, it can take as little as two weeks. 

In administrative cases, the process is simpler because it involves only documentary evidence. In that regard, at the first instance, expert witness testimony does not significantly delay the proceedings because all evidence is filed with the complaint or the response to the complaint. At the second instance, the expert evaluation may take up to four months if the court appoints a third-party expert.

In administrative proceedings, it is possible to request preliminary measures, for which a bond must be provided to guarantee potential damages. However, the law provides the possibility of lifting such measures by offering a counter-bond in the amount of 40% more than the amount initially offered by the plaintiff.

In criminal proceedings, provisional measures may be imposed solely to preserve the subject matter of the investigation. As such, they may not remain in effect until the judgment is rendered and shall remain in effect only until the conclusion of the investigative phase. The defendant is not required to provide any guarantee, as it is the authorities who are seeking to prosecute a crime.

In administrative proceedings, the law sets a two-year deadline for filing a claim once an administrative violation has been declared and is enforceable. Pursuant to the Federal Law on Administrative Procedure, the affected rights holder may file a claim for damages before the IMPI (Administrative Authority), requesting the corresponding quantification, for which they must provide the necessary documentation.

To determine the amount of compensation, the date on which the infringement of the right was established shall be considered, as well as, at the option of the affected rights holder, any legitimate indicator of value provided by the rights holder, including:

• the value of the infringed products or services calculated based on the market price or the suggested retail price; 
• the profits that the rights holder would have failed to receive as a result of the infringement; 
• the profits obtained by the infringer as a result of the infringement; or 
• the price that the infringer would have had to pay to the rights holder for the grant of a license, considering the commercial value of the infringed right and any contractual licenses that had already been granted.

The obligations to act or refrain from acting established in the decision on the merits of the dispute, which cannot be fulfilled by the infringer and which result in damages to the affected rights holder, may also be quantified for the purposes of the corresponding compensation.

If a claim for damages is pursued through civil courts, documentation must also be provided to prove the damage caused by the infringement. Civil courts will be responsible for determining the amount of damages. If the exact amount is unclear, the court may seek the assistance of accounting experts to determine it.

In criminal proceedings, it is possible to seek compensation for damages once the defendant’s guilt has been established. Evidence must also be provided to prove that the harm suffered is directly related to the commission of the crime. At the final hearing, the defendant may be ordered to pay compensation for damages.

The court’s ruling may order the removal and destruction of the goods, both through administrative and criminal proceedings; however, this can only occur once the ruling is final and non-appealable. That said, it is unlikely that any authority could impose restrictions on an employee’s work, but this could be achieved through the signing of a settlement agreement. That said, “non-compete” clauses are delicate in Mexico and must be specific regarding time, territory, subject matter, and the parties involved to be effective; if these guidelines are followed, the clause should be enforceable.

This can be achieved through a claim for damages, which can be effectively filed in civil court or, where appropriate, through administrative channels, once the infringement proceedings have been resolved. In Mexico, it is uncommon for clients to wish to pursue a claim for damages to recover expenses and costs, because this involves initiating a new lawsuit, where new evidence must be offered to prove the merits of the claim and which is subject to further appeals, This is why many of them prefer to avoid investing time and financial resources in seeking payment of any compensatory amount or reimbursement of the funds spent on attorneys’ fees.

In a criminal case, the victim may seek compensation for damages, which may include the costs incurred in mounting a defense against the action brought by the plaintiff. After determining the defendant’s liability, there is a phase for the examination of evidence, during which the amount of compensation for the victim’s damages will be determined.

In administrative proceedings, the payment of costs is not considered.

In administrative matters the appeal is available to either party, regardless of who received the favourable ruling, provided that the ruling is still within the appeal period. Anyone who receives a favourable ruling may appeal, as long as they consider that they did not obtain the “best possible outcome”, or if they consider that despite the favourable outcome, there was an error in the handling of the case that, if not appealed, could cause them problems in the future by tacitly “acknowledging” or “consenting” to it. 

If the ruling is final – either because the appeal period has expired or because the issuing authority is the highest court – it can no longer be overturned.

The deadline for filing an administrative appeal is 30 business days from the date of notification of the decision issued by the authority. For appeals to the highest court (constitutional appeal), the deadline is 15 business days.

In criminal matters, there are only two remedies: revocation and appeal, which may be sought by the persons specified by law and under very specific circumstances. The deadlines for filing them also depend on the circumstances; some motions for revocation must be filed during the hearings, others within two days, and appeals within three to five days.

Generally speaking, there are appeals based on legality and constitutionality. The second instance courts review issues of legality – that is, whether judgments or decisions were issued in accordance with the law and the information or evidence contained in the case files. In the third instance (constitutional appeals), arguments of unconstitutionality may be resolved by arguing that the rule applied by the original authority violates human rights or is inconsistent with the text of the Constitution.

It is recommended that any constitutional issues are raised from the very beginning and that all evidence deemed necessary to substantiate such points is provided, in order to prevent a subsequent refusal to consider them or a determination that they have a novel character; however, these constitutional arguments cannot be considered until the case reaches the Constitutional Court.

In administrative matters, hearings at the first and second instances are private, while those at the third instance are public. In all cases, the judgment must be issued in writing. In criminal cases, you can always attend the hearings.

The offences subject to criminal prosecution are also set forth in the LFPPI. Generally speaking, the Law defines as a crime the disclosure or use of a trade secret – which was learned through one’s job duties or under a licence – knowing that the information was confidential, with the intent to obtain financial gain or cause harm to the owner of the trade secret.

The offence is prosecuted only at the request of the aggrieved party, and penalties range from two to six years in prison and a fine of up to approximately USD2 million. It is important to note that the fine would be paid to the authorities, so the plaintiff could still seek compensation for damages through administrative or civil proceedings. 

Initiating a criminal case allows the plaintiff to request assistance from the authorities in conducting the investigation, request information from government agencies, and seek the prosecution and punishment of the crime. In administrative proceedings, this is theoretically also possible, but it is more complicated and time-consuming, as not all authorities are equally cooperative. Furthermore, in cases involving the imposition of precautionary measures (in administrative proceedings), if the location where the offence was committed is not entirely clear and identifiable, it may not be possible to impose such measures.

In criminal cases, it is much easier to secure goods or impose precautionary measures, even if there may be difficulties in determining the defendant’s address or specifically identifying the person responsible.

In criminal cases, defences may focus more on demonstrating that the subjective element of the action – namely, that it was committed with the intent to obtain financial gain or to cause harm to the party exercising legal control over the trade secret or the authorised user – is not satisfied.

It is possible to resolve a trade secret dispute in Mexico through alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Many law firms recommend the WIPO ADR procedure, which is supported by the IMPI. This recommendation takes into account that costs can be adjusted based on the number of arbitrators selected, all of whom possess expertise in commercial and intellectual property matters – a factor that is always highly beneficial for this type of case. There is generally not a particular advantage or disadvantage to initiating ADR for trade secret cases in Mexico. However, in these cases, it is not possible to request the imposition of measures without a proceeding or trial before the relevant authority. The time it takes to resolve the conflict always depends on how willing the parties are to cooperate; in some cases it takes six months, and in others up to 12 months. Finally, it is possible to maintain confidentiality during the ADR process.