Intellectual Property 2026 Comparisons

IP frameworks across Latin America vary significantly in depth and modernity; Mexico’s April 2026 reform to the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (Ley Federal de Protección a la Propiedad Industrial – LFPPI) is among the most comprehensive updates seen in the region this decade.

Patent protection in Mexico is primarily governed by the LFPPI, published on 1 July 2020 and most recently amended on 3 April 2026. Administrative enforcement lies with the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial – IMPI), complemented by the LFPPI Regulations, entering into force on 23 July 2026; the Federal Law for Administrative Procedure; and the National Code of Civil and Family Procedures. Mexico is a signatory to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and other international IP treaties.

Under Article 48 of the LFPPI, inventions in all fields of technology are patentable provided they are novel, result from inventive activity and are susceptible of industrial application. Article 47 excludes:

• discoveries and scientific theories;
• mathematical methods;
• literary or artistic works;
• business method schemes;
• computer programs as such; and
• forms of presenting information.

Article 49 further excludes:

• inventions contrary to public order or morality;
• human cloning;
• germline genetic identity modification;
• uses of human embryos for industrial purposes;
• plant varieties and animal breeds (except micro-organisms);
• essentially biological processes;
• surgical and diagnostic methods; and
• the human body at various stages of development.

Isolated biological material obtained through a technical process may nonetheless be patentable.

Computer-implemented inventions are permissible provided they exhibit technical character, consistent with European Patent Office (EPO) guidelines. Artificial intelligence (AI)-related inventions are assessed under general patentability criteria. Utility models protect objects exhibiting a functional improvement, requiring novelty and industrial applicability but not inventive step, with a 15-year term from filing.

Administrative delay has historically been one of the most common challenges in Latin American IP prosecution. Mexico’s April 2026 reform introduces binding statutory deadlines and a Specialized Technical Committee empowered to compel decisions – positioning IMPI among the most procedurally accountable offices in the region.

Patent applications are filed with IMPI. Minimum requirements include applicant and inventor details, title, description, claims, abstract, and drawings where necessary. Applications may be filed in any language, with a Spanish translation due within two months. Recent amendments introduced provisional patent applications, securing a filing date and providing a 12-month window to file the complete application.

The granting procedure comprises: formal examination (1–10 months); publication at 18 months; a two-month third-party observation period; substantive examination now subject to a one-year statutory maximum from commencement; and grant upon payment within two months. Accelerated programmes including the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) and Accelerated Granting Procedure (AGP) are available; a PPH allowance may issue in under two months. If IMPI fails to act within statutory deadlines, applicants may petition the Specialized Technical Committee (Articles 327 Bis et seq., April 2026).

Filing costs typically range from USD1,000–2,000; substantive examination from USD500–2,000 per Office Action; and grant stage approximately USD1,200–1,300. Local representation is mandatory for foreign applicants.

A granted patent confers the exclusive right to prevent third parties from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the patented invention without consent. For product patents, the right extends to the product itself; for process patents, it covers the process and products obtained directly from it. The scope is determined by the claims, with the description and drawings serving to interpret them.

The standard term is 20 years from filing (non-extendable). Annuities are payable in five-year periods following grant. Non-payment results in lapse, with a six-month grace period and a further six months for reinstatement.

Supplementary protection certificates are available under Chapter VIII for unreasonable IMPI processing delays, for up to five additional years. Article 136 Bis (April 2026), read with Articles 166 Bis 1–5 of the Health Products Regulations (24 April 2026), provides a further certificate of up to five years when the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios – COFEPRIS) unreasonably delays granting a sanitary registration for a patented pharmaceutical product – a mechanism of direct relevance to life sciences companies across Latin America, where supplementary protection of this kind is not yet available in most other jurisdictions in the region.

Across Latin America, the first-to-file principle governs priority disputes between independent inventors – a standard consistent across all jurisdictions in the region. Rules on employee inventions and university IP are less uniform: Brazil and Colombia have developed specific statutory frameworks for IP generated in public research institutions, while others rely primarily on general employment and contract law. Mexico’s April 2026 reform adds a notable tool – a new administrative ownership claim mechanism providing a more direct path to reclaim patents wrongly granted than judicial proceedings.

In Mexico, the right to obtain a patent belongs to the inventor or successor in title. Joint inventors hold rights jointly; priority follows first-to-file. Inventors retain an inalienable moral right to recognition. For employee inventions, Article 40 refers to the Federal Labour Law. University and public research centre employees may benefit from specific statutory regimes. Article 40 Bis (April 2026) allows the legitimate rights-holder to reclaim ownership of a patent wrongly granted at any time during its term.

Patent rights may be assigned, licensed or encumbered, with recordal before IMPI required for third-party effectiveness. The new Regulations (effective 23 July 2026) establish a Technology Transfer Registry covering non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), research collaborations, material transfer agreements and joint venture instruments; recordal is not a validity requirement but is recommended for third-party enforceability. Compulsory licences are available after three years from grant or four years from filing, and public interest licences may be imposed in emergencies or national security situations.

Administrative infringement under Article 386 of the LFPPI includes manufacturing patented products without consent, using or selling products incorporating a patented invention, using patented processes without authorisation and offering products resulting from unauthorised use of patented processes. The April 2026 amendments expressly provide that infringing acts carried out through AI tools are equally sanctionable – making Mexico the first jurisdiction in Latin America to address AI-enabled IP infringement at the statutory level.

The scope of protection is determined by the claims, interpreted considering the description and drawings. The LFPPI does not codify a doctrine of equivalents; literal infringement is the standard, though IMPI practice has occasionally considered equivalent means.

Defences under Article 57 include:

• experimental, testing or teaching activities with no commercial purpose, including a Bolar-type exemption;
• exhaustion of rights following lawful introduction into Mexican commerce;
• prior use or preparations before the filing or priority date;
• use in foreign transport vehicles;
• use of patented living matter as an initial source of variation; and
• use during the reinstatement period.

There is no specific FRAND defence, though competition law principles may apply.

Patent infringement is enforced through administrative declaration proceedings before IMPI, which may act ex officio or on request. The procedure includes filing, a ten-business-day response period, evidence submission, potential mediation and a final resolution – typically taking 1.5–2 years.

Federal courts have jurisdiction over civil disputes, while the Specialized Court on IP Matters of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal (Sala Especializada en Materia de Propiedad Intelectual del Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa – SEPI) hears appeals against IMPI resolutions, with federal circuit courts as the final appellate stage.

Preliminary injunctions are available ex parte under Article 344 upon demonstrating prima facie infringement, imminent harm or evidence risk. Measures include withdrawal from circulation, seizure, prohibition of commercialisation, suspension of activities, border measures and suspension of digital content, subject to a bond.

Damages under Article 397 are assessed based on market value, lost profits, infringer’s profits or a reasonable royalty, with a statutory minimum of 40% of the legitimate value indicator. Punitive damages are not available. Attorney fees are recoverable in civil proceedings but not in administrative proceedings.

Trade mark protection in Mexico is governed by the LFPPI, in force since 5 November 2020 and most recently amended on 3 April 2026, together with its implementing Regulations. Mexico is also party to the Paris Convention, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Madrid Protocol and the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Under the LFPPI, a trade mark is any sign perceptible by the senses, representable clearly and objectively, which distinguishes goods or services in the market. Protectable signs now include word marks, figurative elements and designs, three-dimensional shapes, trade names, holograms, sound marks, scent marks, trade dress, position marks, motion marks, multimedia marks and combinations thereof. Taste marks are not expressly catalogued but may be registered where secondary meaning and non-functionality are established.

Mexico follows a registration-based system, with unregistered rights recognised in limited circumstances:

• prior use in good faith for opposition or invalidity;
• trade name protection through use; and
• well-known and famous mark protection under international obligations.

The protection of non-traditional trade marks is an area of significant variation across Latin America:

• Brazil admits only visually perceptible marks;
• Argentina, Colombia and Peru have varying acceptance without comprehensive procedural frameworks; and
• Chile modernised in 2022 to permit sounds, motions and three-dimensional marks.

Mexico’s April 2026 reform goes furthest in the region, expressly codifying position, motion and multimedia marks in primary legislation.

Distinctiveness is the principal requirement for trade mark protection. The sign must distinguish the applicant’s goods or services and must not fall within the LFPPI’s statutory prohibitions. Prior use is not required for registration.

Post-registration, marks must be used in commerce within three years of grant or face cancellation. A declaration of use must be filed at the third anniversary and upon renewals.

Acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) must be established through prolonged and exclusive use and identification by the public of the sign and its business origin. Under the new Regulations (effective 23 July 2026), acceptable evidence expressly includes advertising, surveys, market research and digital positioning metrics – a codified standard that goes beyond most other Latin American jurisdictions. Market research must meet defined methodological standards including measurement objectives, disclosed methodology, statistically significant analysis and a named responsible party.

Well-known and famous marks are protected even if not locally registered, with well-known status recognisable in specific classes expressly identified in the relevant IMPI resolution.

Trade mark applications are filed electronically or in writing before IMPI. The standard procedure includes:

• filing;
• publication in the Industrial Property Gazette triggering a one-month opposition period;
• formal examination;
• substantive examination including oppositions; and
• grant if no objections remain.

The April 2026 reform introduced a formal separation between formal and substantive examination stages. In the absence of office actions, registrations must be issued within five months – a binding deadline rare among Latin American registries. Official filing fees are approximately USD195 per application per class. Mexico does not allow multi-class applications.

The standard ten-year renewable trade mark term is consistent across Latin America, reflecting broad alignment with international norms. The calculation starting point varies by jurisdiction: Mexico’s calculation from the grant date (for registrations from November 2020) differs from jurisdictions that calculate from the filing date – a distinction relevant for portfolio management across the region. Mexico’s binding three-month maximum for renewal resolutions is a procedural guarantee not yet codified in most other Latin American jurisdictions.

A Mexican trade mark registration is valid for ten years, renewable indefinitely. For registrations granted before 5 November 2020, the term runs from the filing date; for those granted on or after that date, the term runs from the grant date. Renewal requires the application, payment of fees and a sworn declaration of use. IMPI must render the renewal resolution within three months from filing. No evidence of use is required at filing, though the declaration is made under oath.

The mark must be used in the Mexican market in accordance with industry practices, or on goods intended for exportation. Use must be real and not sporadic, and substantiated through sales records, distribution evidence or storage documentation. Failure to use for three consecutive years renders the mark vulnerable to cancellation.

Exclusive trade mark rights and their principal limitations are broadly consistent across Latin American jurisdictions, reflecting shared TRIPS and Paris Convention obligations. One area of meaningful variation is the exhaustion standard: Mexico applies national exhaustion, meaning parallel imports of legitimately marketed goods may be restricted – a position shared by most but not all jurisdictions in the region.

In Mexico, registration confers the exclusive right to use the mark nationwide and to prevent unauthorised use of identical or confusingly similar signs. The owner may also licence and assign the mark, oppose conflicting applications and initiate administrative, civil and criminal enforcement actions, including customs recordal for border measures.

Limitations and defences include:

• prior exploitation in good faith;
• exhaustion of rights following lawful introduction into commerce; and
• customary use of a name, trade name or corporate name.

Trade mark infringement consists of the unauthorised use of an identical or confusingly similar sign where confusion or association is likely, or where unfair advantage is taken of or harm caused to the distinctive character or reputation of a registered mark. Dilution arises where a term used by multiple holders within its denomination covers similar products or services. The April 2026 reform also codified ambush marketing as an express administrative infringement – sanctioning conduct that misleadingly causes the public to believe a trade mark has an official sponsorship relationship with a mass-attendance event when none exists.

Appeals against IMPI decisions are heard by SEPI, with federal collegiate circuit courts as the final appellate stage. Civil remedies include damages and lost profits, injunctive relief and precautionary measures. Criminal remedies for wilful counterfeiting include fines and imprisonment. Customs-based border measures, including seizure and suspension of goods in transit, are also available.

Copyright frameworks across Latin America share foundational principles through the Berne Convention and TRIPS, though key parameters – particularly the term of protection – vary meaningfully across jurisdictions.

In Mexico, copyright is governed primarily by the Federal Copyright Law (Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor) and its Regulations, complemented by the LFPPI and applicable international treaties including the Berne Convention, TRIPS, the WIPO Copyright Treaties and the USMCA. Protected works include:

• literary works;
• musical works, with or without lyrics;
• dramatic and dance works;
• pictorial, drawing, sculptural and plastic works;
• cartoons and comic strips;
• architectural works;
• cinematographic and audiovisual works;
• radio and television programmes;
• computer programs;
• photographic works;
• works of applied art, including graphic and textile design;
• compilations and databases; and
• any other works that, by analogy, may be regarded as literary or artistic.

Works of applied art are protected in Mexico. Industrial designs may also qualify for copyright protection on a case-by-case basis, though the threshold is high for articles intended for industrial reproduction.

Copyright protection is automatic throughout Latin America – no jurisdiction in the region requires registration as a condition of protection, consistent with Berne Convention obligations. Voluntary registration systems exist in most countries for evidentiary purposes.

In Mexico, copyright arises automatically from the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium. Voluntary registration before the National Copyright Office (Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor – INDAUTOR) is available and serves evidentiary purposes. Protected works must be original creations capable of being disclosed or reproduced in any form or by any means.

All major Latin American jurisdictions define authorship as a human attribute – a position of increasing practical relevance in the context of AI-generated content, consistently applied across Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Colombia.

Under Mexican law, an author is the natural person who creates a literary or artistic work. The law recognises works of collaboration (created jointly by several authors) and collective works (created at the initiative of a natural or legal person incorporating contributions from various authors). In paid collaboration or commissioned works (work for hire), economic rights belong to the commissioning party. In works created within an employment relationship, the applicable contractual and statutory rules govern the allocation of rights.

Moral rights are recognised across Latin America as inalienable and non-waivable, reflecting the civil law tradition shared by Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile and Peru. For companies acquiring or licensing creative works across the region, this means moral rights cannot be transferred – only their exercise may be licensed irrevocably.

In Mexico, moral rights belong to the author as the sole, original and perpetual holder, and are inalienable, imprescriptible, non-waivable and not subject to attachment. Holders may always:

• determine whether and how their work is disclosed;
• require recognition of authorship;
• require respect for the work against distortion or modification;
• modify their work or withdraw it from commerce; and
• object to the attribution of works they did not create.

By virtue of economic rights, the author holds the exclusive right to exploit the work or authorise others to do so, covering:

• reproduction, publication and material fixation;
• public communication through performance, display, telecommunication or making available online;
• public transmission and broadcasting;
• distribution;
• importation of unauthorised copies;
• disclosure of derivative works; and
• any public use not expressly exempted.

Copyright terms vary significantly across Latin America. Mexico provides protection for the life of the author plus 100 years – the longest term in the region, reflecting USMCA obligations under Article 20.62, and exceeding the life-plus-70-years standard adopted by Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay, and the life-plus-50-years term applicable in Andean Community countries. For rights-holders managing cross-border content licensing, works may remain protected in Mexico after falling into the public domain in other Latin American jurisdictions.

There are no statutory termination or reversion rights under Mexican copyright law.

Latin America provides specific enumerated copyright exceptions rather than a general fair use framework – a regional characteristic shared by Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Peru. Ecuador is the only country in the region with an express text-and-data-mining (TDM) exception; no major Latin American jurisdiction currently provides a comprehensive TDM exception for AI training purposes.

In Mexico, the following specific exceptions apply, provided the normal exploitation of the work is not affected, the source is invariably cited and the work is not altered:

• quotation of texts, without simulated substantial reproduction;
• reproduction of current events articles, photographs or comments from the press or broadcast;
• reproduction for criticism and scientific, literary or artistic research;
• single personal-use copy without profit motive;
• archival preservation copies of at-risk works;
• reproduction for evidentiary purposes;
• reproduction of works visible from public places; and
• publication and performance for persons with disabilities on a non-profit basis.

Publication or translation necessary for the advancement of national science, culture or education may also be authorised by the Federal Executive through the Ministry of Culture, subject to compensatory remuneration.

A distinctive feature of Mexico’s copyright enforcement framework, compared to most Latin American peers, is its dual-authority structure: IMPI handles commercial infringement while INDAUTOR handles copyright matters proper. In Colombia and Peru, a single authority handles both IP and competition enforcement; in Brazil, civil courts play a more prominent role.

Copyright infringement in Mexico may give rise to administrative, civil and criminal liability. Administrative infringements – enforced by IMPI in commerce and INDAUTOR in the copyright field – include:

• unauthorised communication, reproduction, storage, distribution or commercialisation of protected works;
• unauthorised use of images;
• circumvention of technological protection measures; and
• removal or alteration of rights management information.

Civil remedies include compensation for material and/or moral damages, with a statutory minimum of 40% of the retail price of the original product.

Criminal offences include:

• wilful commercial reproduction, manufacture, importation, sale or distribution of infringing copies;
• manufacture of devices to deactivate digital protections; and
• unauthorised recording of films exhibited in cinemas.

Precautionary measures include withdrawal from circulation, seizure, suspension of activities, border measures and – in digital environments – suspension, blocking or removal of content.

The absence of a fair use system is a consistent regional characteristic across Latin America. Courts assess infringement based on whether protected expression has been reproduced, without a multi-factor balancing test. This makes AI training data particularly complex across the region – general infringement principles apply equally to digital and computational reproduction of works.

In Mexico, any total or partial reproduction of a work may be actionable unless a statutory exception applies. Courts consider whether the copying is of a quantitatively or qualitatively significant portion of the work. Non-literal copying of structure, sequence and organisation is potentially actionable, particularly for software, though there are limited judicial precedents establishing a clear doctrinal test.

Collective management of copyright across Latin America is characterised by multiple collecting societies operating under national registration and oversight, generally free to set their own tariffs without regulated rate-setting mechanisms. Tariff disputes are primarily resolved through negotiation; formal litigation in this area remains uncommon across all major jurisdictions in the region.

In Mexico, collective management organisations operate under registration before INDAUTOR and are free to set their own tariffs. There are no mandatory licensing schemes for education or broadcasting, though certain statutory exceptions effectively operate as compulsory access without remuneration. There are no established judicial precedents defining a clear standard for tariff disputes.

A key point of difference in industrial design protection across Latin America is treaty participation: only Mexico and Brazil are members of The Hague Agreement for the International Registration of Industrial Designs – in Chile, Colombia, Argentina and Peru, national filings are required in each jurisdiction separately.

Industrial designs in Mexico are governed by the LFPPI, regulating industrial drawings (two-dimensional) and industrial models (three-dimensional), with IMPI responsible for examination and registration. Industrial drawings protect ornamental combinations of shapes, lines or colours applied to a product. Industrial models protect three-dimensional forms providing a particular appearance without technical effect.

Trade dress is protected under trade mark law (Article 172, Section VII, LFPPI) as the overall appearance capable of distinguishing a product or service in the marketplace. The April 2026 reform expanded non-traditional mark protection to expressly include position, motion and multimedia marks, further strengthening protection for product appearance and branding strategies.

Novelty and non-functionality requirements for industrial design protection are broadly consistent across Latin American jurisdictions, reflecting TRIPS alignment. Critically, no jurisdiction in the region provides unregistered design protection – unlike the EU’s three-year automatic protection. Registration before public disclosure is essential in every Latin American country to secure enforceable rights.

In Mexico, designs must be novel and susceptible of industrial application, differing to a significant degree from known designs or combinations of known features. The significant degree standard assesses the overall impression on an informed user, considering the designer’s degree of freedom. Functionality exclusions apply to features dictated solely by technical considerations or whose exact reproduction is necessary for mechanical assembly. These exclusions are interpreted narrowly; arbitrary or aesthetic choices remain protectable.

Unregistered design rights do not exist in Mexico. Only registered designs are enforceable. Trade dress generally requires trade mark registration for effective protection.

Industrial design registration timelines vary across Latin America; Colombia is among the faster registries while Brazil has faced historically significant backlogs. Mexico’s five-year initial term renewable to a maximum of 25 years is broadly consistent with the regional standard. The express recognition of animated designs and graphical user interfaces in Mexico’s framework is notable and not consistently addressed elsewhere in the region.

Design applications must include applicant and designer details, indication of the product, graphic representations and a brief description. Seven standard views are typically recommended. Features not claimed should be shown in dashed lines. The registration process comprises formal examination (3–10 months), publication, substantive examination (4 months–1 year) and grant. Costs include:

• filing (USD500–1,500);
• substantive examination (USD500–1,000 per office action);
• grant and first renewal (approximately USD900); and
• subsequent renewals (approximately USD600 per five-year period).

Protection lasts five years from filing, renewable in five-year periods to a maximum of 25 years, with renewals due within six months prior to expiration and a further six-month grace period.

Industrial design enforcement across Latin America relies on administrative and civil proceedings; criminal sanctions for design infringement are generally not available in the region, consistent with Mexico’s framework. Mexico’s ex parte preliminary injunctions before IMPI provide rapid interim protection, which is particularly relevant in product launch scenarios.

Infringement consists of the unauthorised manufacture, use, offer for sale or commercialisation of products incorporating a registered design, or the use of designs that do not differ to a significant degree from a protected design.

Trade dress infringement arises where a third party uses a confusingly similar overall appearance. The April 2026 amendments confirm that infringing acts carried out through AI are equally sanctionable. Industrial design infringement does not give rise to criminal liability in Mexico. Rights-holders may seek preliminary injunctions and border measures subject to a bond; defendants may post a counterbond.

Damages are assessed based on lost profits, infringer’s profits, market value or a reasonable royalty, subject to a statutory minimum of 40% of the legitimate value presented. Attorney fees are recoverable in civil proceedings but not in administrative proceedings.

The functionality exclusion for industrial designs is applied consistently across Latin America as a matter of TRIPS compliance. Mexico’s framework, which expressly recognises partial designs and addresses the must-fit exception, provides a more detailed analytical structure than most regional peers where design law doctrine is less developed through litigation.

Mexican law excludes features dictated solely by technical function and features whose exact reproduction is necessary for mechanical assembly (the must-fit exception). A design is entirely excluded where its appearance consists exclusively of such elements. These exclusions are interpreted narrowly; arbitrary or aesthetic choices beyond technical necessity remain protectable. Partial designs are expressly recognised, with claimed features shown in solid lines and unclaimed elements in dashed lines.

During examination and invalidity proceedings, IMPI considers the degree of design freedom available, the existence of alternative designs and whether aesthetic considerations beyond technical necessity are present. Invalidity actions may be brought at any time following publication.

Trade secret protection varies meaningfully across Latin America. Most jurisdictions provide some protection through unfair competition law or civil code provisions, but Mexico stands out for the robustness and specificity of its statutory framework – substantially strengthened through USMCA alignment – and for having one of the most deterrent criminal sanction regimes in the region.

Trade secret protection in Mexico is governed by the LFPPI and the Federal Criminal Code. A trade secret is defined as information of industrial or commercial application kept confidential by the person with legal control thereof, by which they may obtain or maintain a competitive or economic advantage over third parties, and regarding which they have adopted sufficient means to preserve confidentiality and restrict access.

Protected information may be attested in documents, electronic or magnetic media, optical discs, microfilms, tapes or any other means. Information in the public domain, readily ascertainable by a person skilled in the art or previously available through prior publication, does not qualify. Information disclosed to authorities for licensing or regulatory purposes is not deemed to have entered the public domain.

The obligation to take reasonable measures to maintain secrecy is universal across Latin American trade secret frameworks. A unified compliance programme addressing confidentiality agreements, cybersecurity protocols, access controls and employee training is generally effective across the region, though each jurisdiction’s specific standards should be verified.

In Mexico, recommended practices include:

• labelling trade secret materials as confidential with defined handling protocols;
• protecting trade secrets through NDAs and confidentiality clauses, including post-termination clauses in employment contracts;
• encrypting digital files, using secure communication channels and maintaining monitoring systems; and
• promoting a culture of respect for trade secrets through employee training.

Any person who has access to a trade secret through a work, employment or business relationship and has been informed of its confidential nature must not disclose it without just cause or consent. Technology transfer agreements may include confidentiality clauses specifying which information is considered confidential.

Misappropriation standards across Latin America are broadly aligned with the TRIPS framework and, for USMCA parties, with the more detailed obligations of that treaty. The key concept – acquisition, use or disclosure contrary to proper commercial practices – is common across jurisdictions, though the specific circumstances that constitute improper acquisition differ in detail. Mexico’s criminal provisions provide the strongest deterrent framework in the region for this type of conduct.

In Mexico, misappropriation consists of the acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret in a manner contrary to proper industrial, commercial or service practices, constituting unfair competition. It also includes acquisition, use or disclosure by a third party who knew or had reason to know the trade secret had been obtained through improper means. Employee, joint venture and competitor disputes are all assessed under this framework, with the key question being whether the conduct departs from proper commercial practices.

Trade secret protection is potentially perpetual across all Latin American jurisdictions – lasting as long as the information remains confidential, without a fixed term. This open-ended protection is a key strategic advantage over patents, particularly for process innovations and formulations whose commercial value may outlast a 20-year patent term. The conditions under which disclosure extinguishes protection are assessed similarly across the region.

In Mexico, protection lasts as long as the information remains confidential and secret to its lawful holder. Accidental disclosure may extinguish protection depending on the extent to which the information becomes publicly known. Authorised disclosure does not extinguish protection if the authorised user is bound by confidentiality obligations.

Mexico’s criminal sanctions for trade secret misappropriation – imprisonment of three to ten years and fines of approximately USD13,600–3,400,300 – are among the most severe in Latin America, reflecting the USMCA’s influence in strengthening deterrence. By comparison, criminal liability in Argentina and Chile is less extensively codified, and enforcement there relies more on civil and administrative routes.

Civil remedies include injunctions to stop unauthorised use and damages where the disclosure affects the holder’s income or commercial position. Administrative infringements include unauthorised appropriation and production, sale, importation or storage of products using a trade secret without consent.

Penalties include fines per violation, additional daily fines, temporary closure for up to 90 days and permanent closure. Criminal offences – disclosing a trade secret without consent, misappropriating and using it for economic benefit or using confidential information from one’s work – are punishable by imprisonment of three to ten years and fines of approximately USD13,600–3,400,300.

Know-how is not separately defined in any Latin American national legislation. Across the region – including Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile – it is treated as a subset of trade secret protection and governed by the same frameworks applicable to confidential commercial information generally. Protection depends on whether the know-how meets the trade secret threshold: commercial application, competitive advantage and adequate confidentiality measures.

Mexican law does not provide a specific statutory definition of know-how, nor does it formally distinguish know-how from trade secrets or confidential information. Protection arises primarily through the trade secret regime under the LFPPI and through contract. There is no separate property right specifically denominated as know-how under Mexican law.

The types of protective information classified as know-how are coextensive with trade secret protection throughout Latin America – the decisive criterion in every jurisdiction is commercial value derived from secrecy, not novelty or inventive step.

In Mexico, technical processes, manufacturing methods, algorithms, customer lists, business strategies and similar commercially valuable information may all qualify, provided confidentiality and secrecy are preserved. There is no novelty requirement; the decisive factors are industrial or commercial application, competitive advantage and adequate confidentiality measures.

Employee know-how ownership across Latin America is governed by employment contracts, labour law and general civil law principles rather than a specific IP statute. In all major jurisdictions, know-how generated in the course of employment is presumed to belong to the employer. NDAs and non-use obligations are the primary protection mechanism throughout the region.

In Mexico, know-how generated by employees in the course of their duties is generally controlled by the employer pursuant to the employment agreement and applicable labour law provisions. The same approach applies to contractors and consultants: protection is primarily contractual, through NDAs and non-use provisions incorporated into the engagement agreement.

Contractual protection through NDAs and confidentiality clauses is the universal approach to know-how across Latin America, given the absence of a distinct statutory right in any jurisdiction. Technology transfer agreements covering technical knowledge and engineering services are a particularly important vehicle for know-how protection in cross-border commercial relationships, and their structure should be verified against each country’s general contract law requirements.

In Mexico, the most used mechanisms are NDAs, confidentiality clauses in commercial or technology contracts, and non-use provisions restricting the counterparty from applying the information for purposes other than those agreed. In technology transfer agreements, confidentiality clauses should specify the categories of information considered confidential and survive the termination of the underlying agreement.

Know-how cannot be assigned or licensed as a fully autonomous right separate from the underlying trade secret in Mexico or anywhere in Latin America, given the absence of a formal know-how property right across the region. Assignments and licences must be made through a trade secret instrument. Recording in Mexico’s Technology Transfer Registry (under the new Regulations) is not mandatory for validity between the parties but is recommended for enforceability against third parties – a practical advantage not yet codified in most other Latin American jurisdictions.

Where know-how is embedded in a patent claim, it may be transferred as part of the patent. Where unpatented, it must be assigned or licenced through a trade secret instrument in writing.

Reverse engineering of lawfully acquired products is generally permissible across Latin America in the absence of contractual restrictions – trade secret protection does not extend to information independently derivable from products placed in commerce. Contractual prohibitions on reverse engineering are common and generally enforceable throughout the region when clearly drafted and proportionate in scope. Mexico’s position is aligned with the regional consensus.

In Mexico, reverse engineering is not expressly addressed in the LFPPI. In the absence of a contractual restriction or confidentiality obligation, reverse engineering of lawfully acquired products is generally permissible for research purposes. Where a product has been made available publicly without restriction, reverse engineering for independent development is unlikely to give rise to liability.

Mexican law recognises legal protection for databases under the Federal Copyright Law. Articles 13(XIV) and 107 provide copyright protection for databases and compilations where the selection or arrangement of contents constitutes an intellectual creation; protection extends to the structure and organisation of the database, not to the underlying data itself.

Article 108 establishes a specific protection regime for non-original databases, granting the creator an exclusive right of use for five years. While this does not fully replicate the EU sui generis database right, it provides limited autonomous protection for non-original databases. Articles 109 and 110 further protect private information in databases and grant exclusive rights over reproduction, adaptation, distribution and public communication of the database structure.

Beyond copyright, datasets may be protected contractually through confidentiality agreements, terms of use, licensing arrangements and application programming interface (API) restrictions, particularly where access is limited or subject to specific conditions. Datasets may also qualify as trade secrets under the LFPPI where the information has commercial value, is not publicly known and is subject to reasonable confidentiality measures. In practice, companies frequently rely on a combination of contractual, technological and trade secret protections.

Mexican law does not contain a specific statutory framework regulating web scraping or automated data extraction. Scraping practices are analysed under copyright law, contract law, trade secret protection, unfair competition principles, data protection legislation and criminal provisions on unauthorised access to computer systems. Scraping publicly available information is not expressly prohibited, but legal risks may arise where scraping violates contractual restrictions, reproduces protected database structures, involves personal data processed without a lawful basis or results in misappropriation of confidential information.

Under Mexican law, copyright protection is fundamentally based on human authorship. The Federal Copyright Law consistently recognises authors as natural persons, and Mexican authorities have interpreted originality as requiring human creative input. Works generated entirely by AI are currently unlikely to qualify for copyright protection or registration in Mexico. INDAUTOR has consistently denied registration of AI-generated works on the grounds that they lack sufficient human originality, a position reinforced by recent decisions of the Specialized Chamber on Intellectual Property Matters of the Federal Court of Administrative Affairs and the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico.

Works created with AI assistance may still qualify for protection where a human exercises meaningful creative control – through selection, editing, arrangement, prompting, curation or substantial modification. Authorship and ownership in such cases vest in the human creator or in the relevant entity pursuant to contractual assignment, employment agreements or work-for-hire structures.

Mexican patent law similarly does not recognise AI systems as inventors. IMPI contemplates inventorship as attributable only to natural persons. Inventions developed with AI assistance may nonetheless be patentable where a human exercised the relevant inventive activity or decision-making within the inventive process.

The use of copyrighted works or trade secrets in AI training datasets may give rise to significant legal risks under Mexican law. Although no AI-specific training provisions currently exist, general rules on copyright protection, trade secrets, infringement, unfair competition and digital exploitation apply fully.

The Federal Copyright Law recognises exclusive rights over reproduction, electronic storage, public communication, making works available online, adaptation and other forms of exploitation.

Unauthorised use of protected works in AI training datasets could constitute copyright infringement or commercial infringement where protected content is reproduced, extracted, stored, processed or commercially exploited without authorisation.

Mexico does not provide a TDM exception comparable to those in certain foreign jurisdictions. General limitations may apply in limited non-commercial circumstances, but Mexican authorities have not yet issued guidance confirming whether AI training activities may validly fall within such exceptions. Trade secret risks are particularly relevant where training datasets include confidential business information; unauthorised acquisition, disclosure or use of such information may trigger administrative, civil and criminal liability.

Across Latin America, the regulatory landscape for AI and IP is evolving but fragmented. Peru became the first country in the region to adopt a general AI regulatory framework in September 2025, with an express mandate to co-ordinate with INDECOPI on IP matters. Brazil’s risk-based AI bill (No 2,338/2023) remains pending. Uruguay became the first Latin American country to sign the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence in 2025.

Mexico stands apart by having addressed AI-enabled IP infringement directly in its primary industrial property statute – the April 2026 LFPPI reform – providing an immediately operational enforcement basis that other jurisdictions in the region have not yet replicated.

The April 2026 reform expressly provides that infringing acts carried out through AI tools are equally sanctionable under the existing administrative infringement framework. Existing IP, unfair competition, civil liability, criminal and data protection frameworks may also be invoked against parties using generative AI in connection with infringing activities.

Liability may extend to AI tool providers where they train systems on unauthorised copyrighted material or facilitate infringing outputs, and to users who commercially exploit infringing AI-generated content. Since the LFPPI does not define AI or AI-assisted tools, the scope of infringing conduct will ultimately be shaped by IMPI’s practice and judicial interpretation.

Strategic IP decisions across Latin America are shaped by the same fundamental trade-offs between patent and trade secret protection that apply globally, but with region-specific variables:

• prosecution timelines that vary widely across national offices;
• criminal sanctions for trade secret misappropriation notably stronger in Mexico than in most peer jurisdictions; and
• a pharmaceutical landscape where supplementary protection mechanisms – now available in Mexico through Article 136 Bis – are absent in most of the region.

The choice between available IP regimes is rarely binary in Mexico; rights-holders typically pursue a layered strategy. Patent protection offers time-limited exclusivity backed by public registration and statutory enforcement mechanisms, suited to inventions with a defined life cycle where independent development by competitors is likely.

Trade secret protection is potentially perpetual and requires no public disclosure – preferred for process innovations, formulations, algorithms and sensitive know-how. Mexico’s criminal sanctions for misappropriation – imprisonment of three to ten years – strengthen the deterrent value relative to most other Latin American jurisdictions. In the pharmaceutical sector, the interaction between patent protection, supplementary certificates, regulatory data protection and trade secrets requires jurisdiction-specific analysis across the region.

Cumulative IP protection of the same subject matter is permitted across Latin American jurisdictions, with no general statutory bars in any major country on simultaneously asserting overlapping rights. The interaction between industrial designs, trade marks and copyright is managed through each regime’s distinct scope requirements – novelty for designs, distinctiveness for marks and originality for copyright – with the functionality exclusion applicable to both designs and three-dimensional marks providing a shared boundary consistently applied across the region.

Mexican law permits cumulative protection under multiple IP regimes without statutory bars. Product appearance may simultaneously attract industrial design protection (novel aesthetic features), trade mark or trade dress protection (acquired distinctiveness as a source identifier), and in limited cases copyright protection. Courts assess each claim independently. No cumulative remedy is generally available for the same act across multiple regimes in a single proceeding, and courts consider the risk of double recovery when quantifying damages.

The strategic relationship between patents and trade secrets presents the same fundamental tension across all Latin American jurisdictions: patent filing requires disclosure, extinguishing trade secret protection for the disclosed subject matter upon publication at 18 months. The strategy of filing patents on core claims while retaining ancillary know-how as trade secrets is widely used throughout the region, particularly in pharmaceutical, chemical and technology sectors.

In Mexico, confidential technical information may be fully protected as a trade secret prior to filing, provided adequate confidentiality measures are maintained. Upon publication, the disclosed content enters the public domain. Rights-holders commonly file patent applications on core claims while retaining manufacturing processes or formulation details as trade secrets – extending competitive advantage well beyond the 20-year patent term. Trade secret protection may survive the expiry or invalidation of a related patent, provided the underlying information was never publicly disclosed.

The overlap between trade marks, trade dress and industrial designs is managed similarly across Latin American jurisdictions through functionality exclusions and distinctiveness requirements. A key practical distinction for regional portfolios is treaty participation: only Mexico and Brazil are members of the Hague Agreement – in Chile, Colombia, Argentina and Peru, separate national filings are required in each jurisdiction.

Mexican law distinguishes between registrable trade marks and trade dress (governed by trade mark law) and industrial designs (governed by the LFPPI’s design registration regime), though both may overlap for product shapes and packaging.

Industrial designs protect novel aesthetic appearance for up to 25 years; trade mark and trade dress protection requires distinctiveness and use but may be renewed indefinitely. The functionality exclusion is the key interface: features dictated solely by technical function are excluded from both regimes. Where a shape is partly functional and partly aesthetic, the aesthetic contribution may remain protectable under design law while the overall commercial impression – if distinctive – may qualify for trade mark protection.

The coexistence of copyright and trade mark protection over logos and branding elements is consistent across Latin America, reflecting the same principle applied throughout the region: copyright protects expression against copying, while trade mark protects the sign as a commercial source identifier. A distinctive feature of Mexico’s April 2026 reform is the explicit statutory consolidation of the interface between these two systems – replacing the prior reservas de derechos mechanism with express absolute grounds for trade mark refusal where signs conflict with existing copyright interests.

In Mexico, logos and branding materials may simultaneously attract copyright protection (automatic upon creation) and trade mark protection (requiring IMPI registration). The April 2026 reform expressly excludes trade mark registration signs identical or similar to titles of publications, fictional characters, performance characters, artistic names and denominations of artistic groups where they conflict with existing copyright interests. Each direction of overlap – copyright limiting trade mark enforcement and trade mark restricting use of copyrighted works – must be evaluated on its specific facts.

The institutional structure for multi-right IP enforcement varies across Latin America in ways that affect litigation strategy:

• in Mexico, IMPI handles industrial property while INDAUTOR handles copyright;
• in Colombia and Peru, a single authority covers both IP and competition; and
• in Brazil, civil courts play a more prominent role.

Cross-border enforcement spanning multiple jurisdictions requires careful sequencing across these distinct institutional structures.

In Mexico, claims under different IP rights may be brought before IMPI where the relevant rights fall within its jurisdiction – patents, trade marks, industrial designs, trade secrets and unfair competition. Copyright claims are administered by INDAUTOR or IMPI depending on the field. Damages are calculated independently for each right infringed, subject to the 40% statutory minimum and the principle against double recovery.

Provisional measures are available across all regimes and may be requested concurrently. Attorney fees are recoverable in civil proceedings but generally not in administrative proceedings.

Latin America is not a single IP jurisdiction – it comprises over 20 distinct national legal systems, each with its own IP office, enforcement infrastructure and treaty commitments. Rights-holders must file separately in each country, with the partial exception of Andean Community members (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), whose common regime under Decision 486 provides a degree of harmonisation. Mexico frequently serves as a hub jurisdiction for companies managing Latin American IP portfolios and is the only country in the region participating simultaneously in the Madrid Protocol (trade marks), the PCT (patents) and the Hague Agreement (industrial designs).

Mexico’s IP framework is deeply integrated with international treaty obligations, including the Paris Convention, TRIPS, the Madrid Protocol, the PCT, the Hague Agreement, the Berne Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the USMCA. The USMCA has been particularly influential, as reflected in the April 2026 reform. In cases of conflict between treaty standards and domestic implementation, courts apply the pro persona principle and give effect to the more protective standard. The joint review mechanism under Article 34.7 provides a structured bilateral avenue for further alignment.

Border measures are available through customs recordal of trade mark and copyright registrations. IMPI’s modernised digital enforcement powers – including authority to order suspension, blocking or removal of online content – may be exercised in conjunction with equivalent measures in other jurisdictions.