Intellectual Property 2026 Comparisons

In Mexico patent protection is broadly guaranteed by the Mexican Constitution and international treaties. The specific legal framework governing patent rights is the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (FLPIP) and its Regulations. In addition to patents, utility model and industrial design protection is available.

As a general rule, inventions are patentable if they are novel, involve an inventive step, and are industrially applicable. However, the law expressly excludes certain subject matter from patentability or from being regarded as an invention. Such exclusions include discoveries, scientific theories and principles, mathematical methods, literary or artistic works and other aesthetic creations, as well as schemes, plans, rules, and methods for performing mental acts, playing games, or carrying out business or economic activities. Computer programs and methods for presenting information are likewise excluded from patent protection. In addition, biological and genetic material as found in nature is not regarded as an invention and is therefore not patentable.

In addition, the mere aggregation or juxtaposition of known inventions or products is not patentable unless the combination results in a technical integration such that the elements cannot function independently, or unless the combination produces modified characteristics or functions resulting in a non-obvious and industrially applicable technical effect.

Additionally, the law expressly forbids patenting the following inventions:

• Invention contrary to public order, particularly where such exploitation must be prevented to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, or to avoid serious environmental harm. This exclusion covers, among others, human cloning processes and products, processes for modifying the human germline genetic identity where the development of a human being is possible, industrial or commercial uses of human embryos, and genetic modification of animals that is likely to cause suffering without substantial medical or veterinary benefit.
• Plant varieties and animal breeds, except for microorganisms.
• Essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals and the products obtained therefrom are not patentable, without prejudice to the patentability of microbiological or other technical processes and their resulting products.
• Surgical or therapeutic methods for the treatment of the human or animal body, as well as the diagnostic methods applied to them.
• The human body, at any stage of its formation and development, including the mere discovery of one of its elements such as a gene sequence. However, biological material that is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process may be patentable, even if it previously existed in nature, provided that the industrial application of a full or partial nucleic acid or protein sequence is expressly disclosed in the patent application.

The applicant must file an application before the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (IMPI). Such application can be filed directly by the inventor/applicant or by the authorised agent. In this latter case, the agent must file the application with a Power of Attorney (PoA), duly granted by the titleholder/applicant.

IMPI will conduct two examinations: formal and substantial.

During the formal examination, IMPI will review formalities such as the PoA, if there is an assignment agreement, a priority claim, etc. If there is any missing information/documentation, or IMPI considers that clarification is required, it may issue up to two Office Actions requiring the applicant to clarify or submit any missing/required documentation.

In the substantial examination stage, the analysis is mainly focused on technical aspects. This means that the examiner evaluates whether the application fulfils with the legal requirements to be considered an invention: new, with inventive step and subject to industrial application.

Recently, an amendment to the FLPIP established that substantive examination must be completed within one year from the publication of the patent application, with the possibility of issuing up to two Office Actions. Previously, up to four office actions were allowed, and the examination process could take between two and four years.

With respect to the costs, official fees are payable for the filing of the application, the filing of any responses to Office Actions and  the issuance of the patent title and the annuities.

The rights conferred to the owner are essentially (but not limited to) the following: to prevent third parties from manufacturing, selling, using, offering for sale, or importing the invention without consent. Additionally, the title holder may transfer ownership to third parties, grant licences, and otherwise dispose of the rights.

The standard term of protection is 20 years from the filing date of the application, subject to the payment of annuities, which are payable in five-year periods (ie, in quinquennial instalments). If, for any reason, the title holder fails to pay the required annuities, the patent will lapse, with limited possibilities of restoration through litigation or administrative remedies.

Since 2020, the FLPIP (formerly the Mexican Industrial Property Law) has expressly provided for the possibility of patent term compensation. This reform was introduced primarily to align the Mexican legal framework with Mexico’s obligations under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). In parallel, patent term compensation has also been recognised and granted in certain cases based on judicial precedent of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico interpreting Mexico’s obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which continues to serve as a relevant interpretative reference for the application of such compensation mechanisms.

Under the current legal framework, compensation may be granted when unjustified delays attributable to the IMPI directly affect the patent holder’s rights. Such compensation may extend the patent term for a maximum of five years. In these cases, the IMPI, upon a petition filed by the patent holder, may determine the applicable compensation. The extension is calculated at a rate of one additional day of patent term for every two days of unjustified delay, subject to the statutory cap of five years and without the possibility of further extension.

Additionally, since 2026, the FLPIP incorporates a patent term adjustment mechanism linked to marketing authorisations issued by the health authority (COFEPRIS). In such cases, COFEPRIS evaluates and grants the adjustment and subsequently instructs IMPI to extend the corresponding patent term. This extension is also capped at a maximum of five years. The specific procedural framework is set out in the applicable health regulations.

Any person who makes an invention is entitled to apply for and, if granted, hold a patent. This right may be transferred to third parties through an assignment of rights. Notwithstanding such transfer, the inventor must always be recognised as such in the patent application and in the granted patent.

Employee inventions are governed by the Federal Labor Law. As a general rule, when an invention is made by an employee in the course of employment, the employer is entitled to the rights over the invention when it falls within the scope of the employee’s duties or is developed using the employer’s resources or information. However, the employee is entitled to be recognised as the inventor in all corresponding filings and patents. In addition, the employee has the right to receive additional remuneration or a special compensation for the invention, which is independent from salary and arises from the inventive contribution, particularly where the invention generates economic benefit for the employer.

With respect to inventions made at universities or other educational or research institutions, there is no special statutory regime distinct from the general patent rules. Accordingly, ownership is generally determined in accordance with the applicable employment or contractual arrangements between the institution and the inventor. In practice, universities typically regulate ownership allocation and remuneration internally through institutional IP policies or agreements, while ensuring that inventors are properly credited.

Patent assignments and licences, in order to be effective against third parties, must be recorded before the IMPI. For recordal purposes, the agreement must identify the parties, the patent or application involved, and the scope of rights granted or transferred. The agreement must be duly executed and accompanied by payment of the corresponding official fees. Until recordation is completed, the assignment or licence is not enforceable against third parties.

Mexican law provides that the scope of protection conferred by a patent is determined by the granted claims. Accordingly, infringement is assessed primarily on a literal basis. Mexican law does not expressly recognise the doctrine of equivalents, and therefore protection is generally limited to the literal wording and technical scope of the claims as granted.

Patent infringement grounds are contained in Article 386 of the FLPIP, which sets out specific infringing acts. The most common include, among others, manufacturing, selling, using, offering for sale, or importing a patented product or a product obtained through a patented process without authorisation.

Defences are determined on a case-by-case basis; however, Mexican law expressly provides that the rights conferred by a patent shall not have effect against the following.

• Use of a patented invention (including manufacture and importation) for exclusively scientific or technological research purposes of an experimental, testing, or educational nature, provided that such activities are conducted in a private or academic context and without commercial purposes.
• Bolar-type exception: use, manufacture, sale, or importation of a product protected by a valid and enforceable patent, exclusively for the purpose of generating tests, data, information, or experimental production necessary to obtain sanitary or regulatory approvals for medicinal products intended for human health, provided that such activities are strictly limited to that regulatory purpose.
• Exhaustion of rights: no infringement occurs in relation to the use, sale, or acquisition of a patented product after it has been lawfully placed on the market by the patent holder or with its consent.
• Prior use.
• Temporary presence: when the patented invention forms part of vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or other means of transport belonging to another country, provided that such means of transport are temporarily or transitively present in national territory.
• Use of living matter after lawful market entry.

IMPI is the authority with jurisdiction to resolve patent disputes in Mexico, including actions related to patent invalidation and infringement. Decisions issued by IMPI may be challenged through a nullity action, which is adjudicated as a new proceeding before the Federal Court for Administrative Affairs (FCAA). The decision of the FCAA may, in turn, be challenged through an amparo proceeding before the Federal Circuit Courts (FCC).

IMPI is the only authority legally empowered to declare the invalidity of a patent. However, the FCAA or the FCC may order IMPI to issue a corresponding invalidation or infringement decision when resolving challenges brought before them. Mexico is not bound by decisions issued by foreign courts or authorities with respect to patent validity or infringement.

In practice, obtaining a final and unappealable decision in patent litigation may take approximately four to six years, depending on the complexity of the case and the number of appeals pursued.

Since 2020, it has been possible for patent holders to seek damages directly before civil courts, without first completing an administrative infringement proceeding before IMPI. Nevertheless, if a counterclaim challenging the validity of the patent is raised, such counterclaim falls exclusively within IMPI’s jurisdiction. In those circumstances, the civil court must stay the proceedings until the validity of the patent has been confirmed by IMPI.

Finally, preliminary injunctions are available in patent matters. The party requesting the injunction must post a bond, and the authority will determine whether the injunctive relief should be granted. The affected party has the right to lift the injunction by posting a counterbond, although the final determination remains with the competent authority.

Remedies for the infringement can be administrative sanctions, fines, and injunctions.

Trade mark protection in Mexico is primarily governed by the FLPIP, alongside its regulations and applicable international treaties to which Mexico is a party.

A wide range of signs may be protected, provided they are capable of distinguishing goods or services in the marketplace. These include:

• word marks (including names, letters and numbers);
• logos and figurative elements;
• three-dimensional shapes;
• trade dress (overall appearance of products or establishments);
• colours (when combined or associated in a distinctive manner);
• sounds and scents; and
• position, multimedia and motion trade marks.

Mexico follows a registration-based system; however, unregistered marks may receive limited protection. Rights derived from use can be relevant, particularly in opposition and nullity actions, as well as in cases involving bad faith filings.

The core requirement for trade mark protection in Mexico is distinctiveness. A mark must be capable of identifying the commercial origin of goods or services and distinguishing them from others in the market.

While use is not required to obtain registration, it becomes relevant in several contexts, such as, to support acquired distinctiveness, to defend against non-use cancellation actions or to establish prior rights in disputes

Acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) may be demonstrated through evidence, such as, duration and extent of use, advertising and marketing efforts, market recognition and consumer perception, sales figures and market share.

Mexico also recognises well-known and famous marks, even if they are not registered locally. These marks benefit from broader protection, including against dilution and registration of confusingly similar signs, provided their recognition in Mexico can be proven.

Registration is not strictly required to have rights, but it is essential to obtain full enforceability and legal certainty in Mexico.

The registration process generally includes:

• filing of the application before the IMPI;
• formal and substantive examination;
• publication for opposition (30-day period); and
• issuance of a registration, if no obstacles arise.

The typical timeline ranges from four to six months, assuming there are no objections or oppositions.

Mexico does not allow multi-class applications.

Trade mark registrations in Mexico are granted for a term of ten years from the registration date and may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods.

To maintain a registration, a declaration of use must be filed within three months following to the third year anniversary of registration. Renewal applications must include a declaration of use.

Genuine use generally requires real and effective commercial use of the mark in Mexico in connection with the registered goods or services. Failure to use a mark for three consecutive years may expose it to cancellation for non-use, either wholly or partially.

Registration grants the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with the registered goods or services and to prevent third parties from using identical or confusingly similar signs.

Key rights include the ability to initiate infringement actions, the right to oppose conflicting applications and the ability to license or assign the mark.

However, these rights are subject to certain limitations and defecses, including the following.

• Descriptive use: third parties may use terms that are descriptive or necessary to indicate characteristics of goods or services, provided such use is made in good faith and does not create a likelihood of confusion. This operates as a narrower concept than the “fair use” doctrine found in other jurisdictions.
• Use of personal or corporate names: Mexican law does not recognise a broad “own-name defence” where such use would conflict with a registered trade mark. The use of a personal or business name may be restricted if it infringes prior trade mark rights or creates confusion in the marketplace.
• Exhaustion of rights: trade mark rights are exhausted once goods have been lawfully placed on the market by the right holder or with its consent. As a result, parallel imports are generally permitted, provided the products are genuine and have not been materially altered.

Trade mark infringement generally consists of the unauthorised use of a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark in connection with related goods or services.

Trade mark dilution refers to the weakening or loss of a brand’s distinctiveness or prestige as a result of improper use.

Trade mark passing off in Mexico is primarily addressed through trade mark infringement actions regulated by the IMPI under the FLPIP. While Mexican law does not explicitly recognise common law “passing off” for unregistered marks, prior good-faith users can challenge similar registered marks or defend against infringement claims.

Trade mark disputes are primarily handled by IMPI in administrative proceedings. Appeals may be brought before specialised federal courts.

Available remedies include:

• injunctions and cessation orders;
• administrative fines;
• seizure of infringing goods; and
• border measures through customs authorities.

Criminal actions may also apply in cases involving counterfeiting.

Damages are typically pursued in subsequent civil proceedings once infringement has been declared.

Mexico is a party to the Berne Convention, and copyright protection is governed primarily by the Federal Copyright Law, as well as its regulations and applicable international treaties.

Protection extends to original creations in the literary, artistic, and scientific fields, including literary works, musical works, pictorial and graphic works, audiovisual works, software, databases, architectural works, and works of applied art. Applied art is expressly recognised and may be protected under copyright provided it meets the originality threshold.

Industrial designs are generally protected under industrial property law rather than copyright; however, in certain cases there may be overlap where a work qualifies as applied art, allowing for dual or alternative protection depending on its characteristics.

Any work that is original is protected from the moment of fixation. However, it is also possible to register copyright and related agreements before the National Copyright Institute to facilitate enforcement.

The author is the individual that creates the work and must always be recognised as such, even if the copyright is owned by someone else. Works created by employees as part of their employment duties are governed by the respective employment agreement. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the ownership of the copyright will be split at 50% between employer and employee.

If a work is created on commission, the copyright will be owned by the individual or entity commissioning the work.

In the absence of written documents, the law will presume that the copyright fully belongs to the author. It is important to document the relationship between the parties if a legal entity is to claim the copyright ownership.

The owner of the copyright is entitled to decide on any form of exploitation such as copying, public communication or the publishing of derivative works. The owner of the copyright may also be entitled to receive royalties for the public communication of the work.

The author has moral rights in respect to disclosing the work, paternity and opposing actions that may damage the reputation of the work or the author. If the work is made for hire, then the individual or entity commissioning the work will have the right to disclose it and to protect its reputation, but the author still has to be recognised as such. The moral rights cannot normally be assigned and may be exercised by the author’s heirs upon death.

The term of protection is 100 years from the death of the author. If this cannot be determined because the work is pseudonymous or anonymous, the term runs from 100 years from publication. If the work has multiple authors, the term does not start running until the death of the last surviving author.

Assignments of copyright in Mexico for works other than software must be for a specific timeframe. The law will presume a duration of five years in the absence of a contractual provision. A term of more than 15 years can only be convened with a valid cause, such as the investments to be made in communicating the work.

Exceptions are limited and statutory. There is no general “fair use” defence. In general, the exceptions are the quotation of texts, the reproduction of works visible from public view, the partial reproduction for research and non-profit publishing for persons with disabilities.

Any exploitation of a work made for direct or indirect profit, including the exploitation of derivative works, may constitute copyright infringement. Such cases are normally brought before the IMPI, which may issue temporary or permanent injunctions (including blocking orders) and fines. In addition, if infringement is found, the owner of the copyright will be entitled to an award for damages of at least 40% of the sales price to the public of each infringing product or service provided. If a price cannot be determined, then the damages will be calculated on the basis of expert testimony on subjects such as the market value of a licence over the infringed copyright.

Civil and criminal proceedings are also possible. The Federal Criminal Code classifies certain forms of infringement as federal crimes and a complaint could be filed with a public prosecutor. Also, public prosecutors can also pursue a conviction ex officio in certain cases.

Copyright does not protect ideas themselves, but only the way in which they are expressed: more than mere non-literal copying would be required. For software, coincidences in codes, interfaces, etc, would likely be required to successfully claim infringement and not just structure, sequence or organisation.

Collecting societies are authorised by the National Copyright Institute to operate as such and collect royalties. Typically, they negotiate the licence fees directly with users. Nonetheless, the National Copyright Institute is authorised to determine the tariff in the absence of agreements between users and collecting societies and they have fixed tariffs for specific uses such as the use of music within the common areas of hotels. Mexican collecting societies are non-profit and may only retain from their members the amounts needed for their operation. They are due to treat both their members and users in an equitable manner. They also have agreements with equivalent societies worldwide.

The FLPIP and its regulations constitute the primary legal framework governing industrial designs and trade dress in Mexico. International treaties to which Mexico is a party may also be applicable and are interpreted consistently with domestic law.

Industrial designs are protected under two main categories: (i) industrial drawings, which consist of a combination of lines, shapes, figures, or colours incorporated into an industrial product to give it a distinctive visual appearance; and (ii) industrial models, which refer to three-dimensional forms that serve as a pattern for the manufacture of a product and confer a particular visual appearance. In both cases, protection is limited to aesthetic features and expressly excludes any technical or functional aspects.

The protectable aspects of a product’s appearance include, among others, its shape, configuration, surface ornamentation, colour combinations, and overall visual impression. Novelty is assessed based on whether the design has been independently created and whether it produces a significantly different overall impression on an informed user compared to prior known designs.

Trade dress, recognised in Mexico as a form of trade mark protection, covers the overall image or appearance of products, packaging, or commercial establishments, provided that such appearance functions as an indicator of commercial origin.

According to Mexican law, to be eligible for protection, an industrial design must have novelty and be subject to industrial application. Novelty arises based on whether the design was independently created and if it produces a significant overall impression from any other prior known design. Unregistered designs are not protected.

Trade dress is treated as a form of trade mark under Mexican law. Therefore, its requirements for protection are aligned with those applicable to trade marks. In particular, trade dress must be distinctive, ie, capable of identifying the commercial origin of goods or services. Unregistered rights may arise in limited circumstances. Trade dress may acquire protection through use if it becomes distinctive, although registration significantly strengthens enforceability.

The procedure for registering industrial designs is governed by the same rules applicable to patent applications with respect to filing requirements, formal examination, and substantive examination.

Industrial design registrations are granted for an initial term of five years from the filing date. The registration may be renewed for successive five-year periods, up to a maximum term of 25 years.

In the case of industrial designs, infringement occurs when a third party uses a design that does not produce a significantly different overall impression on an informed user compared to a previously registered design. Infringement also includes manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, or importing a product incorporating the protected industrial design without the consent of the titleholder or the licensee.

Enforcement actions are brought before the IMPI through administrative proceedings, and civil courts may subsequently be involved for the recovery of damages. Available remedies include administrative fines, seizure and destruction of infringing goods, and compensation for damages. Mexican law also provides for interim measures, such as provisional seizure of goods or suspension of allegedly infringing activities, as well as border measures through customs authorities to prevent the import or export of infringing products. In practice, the grant of such measures generally requires the posting of a bond.

In the case of trade dress, infringement occurs when a third party reproduces or uses, without authorisation, a protected trade dress that is likely to cause confusion as to commercial origin.

Enforcement is primarily administrative before IMPI. Remedies include injunctions, administrative fines, seizure of infringing products, and border enforcement measures through customs authorities. As with trade marks, claims for damages must be pursued separately before civil courts once an administrative infringement decision has been obtained.

If the appearance of a product is solely to achieve a technical result, or if the feature must be reproduced exactly for mechanical assembly or connection with another product, it is considered functional and excluded from design protection. A design can be refused or invalidated for the technical necessity.

With respect to partial designs, these are expressly accepted under Mexican law. Protection may be granted to designs embodied in a part of a product, as well as to designs consisting of a form intended to enable the assembly or multiple interconnections of products, or their connection within a modular system, provided that the design meets the requirements of novelty and industrial applicability.

The legal framework governing trade secret protection in Mexico is primarily set out in the FLPIP and its regulations, as well as in the Criminal Code provisions applicable to unlawful disclosure, misappropriation, or misuse of confidential information. General principles of civil liability may also apply in cases involving breach of confidentiality obligations.

Trade secrets are defined as any information that is lawfully controlled by a person or entity, kept confidential, not generally known or readily accessible to persons within the relevant industrial or commercial sectors, and that derives actual or potential economic value from being secret. Such information must be subject to reasonable measures or systems designed to maintain its confidentiality and restrict access.

Trade secrets may include technical, commercial, financial, or industrial information, and may be contained in any physical or digital medium, including documents, electronic or magnetic files, optical disks, microfilm, films, or any other existing or future storage format.

For protection to apply, it must be established that:

• the information is not generally known or readily accessible;
• it has commercial value precisely because it is secret;
• it is lawfully controlled by the person asserting protection; and
• reasonable measures have been adopted by its lawful controller to preserve its confidentiality.

The FLPIP does not establish a closed or exhaustive list of specific measures to maintain trade secret protection. Instead, the assessment is made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the information, the industry, and the circumstances of disclosure, among other relevant factors.

In practice, owners are expected to adopt reasonable measures to preserve confidentiality. These typically include notifying employees that the information is confidential and constitutes a trade secret, limiting access strictly to personnel who need it for the performance of their duties, and implementing contractual and/or technical safeguards. Disclosure should be restricted to what is strictly necessary for the fulfilment of employees’ or contractors’ obligations.

In addition, trade secrets should be appropriately documented and handled in a manner consistent with their confidential nature, including physical and electronic safeguards, access controls, and internal policies designed to prevent unauthorised disclosure or use.

Disclosure to employees or third parties does not automatically eliminate protection, provided that confidentiality is maintained and reasonable protective measures are in place. However, if disclosure is made without adequate safeguards or without imposing confidentiality obligations, protection may be weakened or lost depending on the circumstances.

In Mexico, misappropriation or unlawful acquisition of trade secrets occurs when confidential information of industrial or commercial value is obtained, used, or disclosed without authorisation and through improper means. This includes acquisition by theft, unauthorised access, breach of confidentiality obligations, inducement to breach, fraud, deception, abuse of trust, or any conduct contrary to honest commercial practices. It also covers the use or disclosure of a trade secret by a person who knew, or should have known, that the information was obtained unlawfully or in breach of a duty of confidentiality.

Employee, joint venture, and competitor disputes are generally assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the existence of contractual confidentiality obligations, the scope of authorised access to the information, and whether reasonable measures to maintain secrecy were in place. In employment contexts, disputes typically focus on whether the information was obtained within the scope of employment and whether post-employment use or disclosure violates confidentiality duties. In joint ventures, the analysis generally turns on contractual allocation of rights and permitted uses of shared information. In competitor disputes, the key issue is usually whether acquisition or use occurred through improper means or induced breach of confidentiality obligations.

Remedies for misappropriation include administrative sanctions, criminal liability, civil claims for damages, and injunctive relief.

Trade secret protection in Mexico may last indefinitely, as long as the information continues to meet the legal requirements for protection, particularly that it remains confidential and maintains its economic value due to its secrecy.

Protection is lost when the information becomes generally known or readily accessible to persons within the relevant industrial or commercial sectors, whether through disclosure, publication, or other means, and provided that such loss of secrecy is not counteracted by reasonable protective measures.

Accidental disclosure may result in loss of protection if it leads to the information becoming public and no effective confidentiality measures remain in place. However, if the disclosure is limited and reasonable measures are promptly taken to preserve confidentiality, protection may be maintained depending on the circumstances. Authorised disclosure does not necessarily terminate protection, provided it is made under confidentiality obligations and does not place the information in the public domain.

Civil remedies include injunctions (such as orders to cease the infringing conduct) and claims for damages. In addition, administrative sanctions may be imposed under the FLPIP for acts of trade secret misappropriation or unlawful disclosure.

Criminal sanctions are also available under the Criminal Code, where the unlawful acquisition, disclosure, or use of trade secrets may constitute a criminal offence, depending on the circumstances of the conduct and the means used to obtain the information.

With respect to procedural mechanisms to preserve confidentiality during litigation, Mexican law allows parties to request confidentiality measures before the competent authority or court. These may include restricted access to judicial files, limitation of access to the information to the parties and authorised personnel only, on-site review of documents at court facilities, and restrictions on obtaining or issuing certified copies of confidential materials. These measures are intended to prevent public disclosure of sensitive information during the course of proceedings.

There is no statutory definition of “know-how” under Mexican intellectual property legislation. In practice, know-how is generally understood as practical, technical, and operational knowledge derived from experience, which may include processes, methods, or skills that are not necessarily fully documented.

Know-how differs from trade secrets in that it does not strictly require absolute secrecy or the same level of protective measures, nor is it always necessary for it to have an independent economic value derived exclusively from secrecy. Trade secrets, by contrast, require confidentiality, lawful control, economic value derived from secrecy, and the adoption of reasonable measures to maintain confidentiality.

Know-how is not recognised in Mexico as an independent intellectual property right or statutory property right. Instead, it is primarily protected through contractual arrangements (such as confidentiality agreements, technology transfer agreements, or licensing agreements) and, where applicable, through general principles of civil liability and unfair competition.

As mentioned in 6.1 Definition and Legal Basis of Know-How, know-how does not have a formal statutory definition of protection requirements in Mexico and, unlike trade secrets, it is not subject to a strict legal test of secrecy, novelty, or economic value as a condition for protection. However, in practice, its enforceability depends on the existence of contractual obligations and, where applicable, whether the information qualifies as a trade secret under the FLPIP.

In Mexico, know-how created by employees in the course of employment and within their assigned duties is generally presumed to belong to the employer, particularly where it is developed using the employer’s resources or in connection with its business activities. In practice, this allocation may also depend on the employment contract and internal policies governing confidentiality and intellectual property.

Employees are subject to statutory duties of loyalty, good faith, and confidentiality under Mexican labour law, as well as contractual obligations, which together include an obligation not to disclose or misuse the employer’s know-how during and, where applicable, after employment.

For contractors, consultants, and joint development partners, ownership and use of know-how are primarily determined by the applicable contract. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, allocation is assessed based on the scope and purpose of the relationship and general civil law principles.

The protection of know-how in Mexico relies primarily on contractual mechanisms. The most common instruments are non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), confidentiality clauses in employment and service agreements, non-use and limited-purpose clauses, and restrictions on access to information. In practice, agreements often also define what is considered know-how and may be supplemented by internal policies and technical access controls to reinforce confidentiality.

In Mexico, know-how may be assigned or licensed independently from trade secrets or patents, as it is not subject to a specific intellectual property regime and is primarily governed by contract law.

There are no statutory formalities for the assignment or licensing of know-how. In practice, the arrangement is valid as a matter of contract, and parties may freely agree on terms, provided general requirements for contractual validity are met. No recordal, notarisation, or registration is required.

Reverse engineering is generally lawful in Mexico, particularly when conducted on products that have been lawfully acquired and are available on the market. In such circumstances, it is typically considered a legitimate method of obtaining information and does not, by itself, constitute infringement of intellectual property or trade secret rights.

Contractual restrictions may nevertheless prohibit reverse engineering, usually through licence agreements, terms of use, or confidentiality clauses. These provisions are generally enforceable under Mexican contract law, provided they are validly agreed and do not conflict with mandatory legal rules. Their practical effectiveness depends on the existence and enforceability of a binding contractual relationship between the parties.

A database that is original due to the selection or disposition of its contents can be protected just as a copyrighted work. Databases that are not original may still be subject to a five-year right of exclusive use.

Mexico also protects information that is confidential and provides a competitive advantage as industrial secrets. This information could feasibly include datasets, provided the owner implements appropriate measures  to prevent disclosure and the information provides a competitive advantage. In addition, local criminal codes often sanction the disclosure of information that is obtained in the course of professional activities, which may also include data sets.

Protection through non-disclosure or similar agreements is also possible.

The approach to scraping and data extraction is the same as for any other kind of work or confidential information. There are no specific defences or exceptions applicable to it.

In Mexico, an author or inventor is always an individual, and an AI cannot be considered as an author or inventor. The courts have validated this restriction. In Mexico, it is therefore not legally possible to name AI as an author or inventor.

Regarding AI outputs, the Mexican Supreme Court has held that AI creations without a human contribution are in the public domain and not protected. The Court considers that the creation of a work is a purely human activity and that a human contribution is needed for the work to be protected.

A business would need to clearly understand the component of a work created with the assistance of AI that are attributable to human contribution in order for the work to be protected and to enforce its copyright in Mexico.

Copying, communicating or making derivative works of a copyrighted work without authorisation may constitute copyright infringement and subject the infringer to severe fines, claims for damages, injunctions, etc. Unlike other jurisdictions, Mexico does not have a general “fair use” defence to copyright infringement. If the output resulting from the use of trained databases is similar enough to be considered a derivative work, there may be potential for liability. There are no specific defences or exceptions for data-mining.

If the data mined includes personal data such as the names, image and likeness of identifiable individuals, then the use of that data requires the consent of the individual, unless they are taken from a publicly available source or subjected to a dissociation process.

Industrial secrets cannot be used or exploited without the consent of the respective owner. Any misappropriation, undue access or disclosure could be subject to criminal prosecution, even if made with the use of AI tools.

The Federal Copyright Law exempts providers of online services, defined as parties that store materials online for users or that link users to contents through hyperlinks or similar mechanisms, from liability from the actions of their users if they fulfil certain requirements. Accordingly, a provider of an online AI tool could be exempt from liability for what users of the tool do with it in certain cases. The most important requirements are that there must be a policy to suspend access to repeat copyright infringers and a notice-and-takedown mechanism to eliminate infringing contents quickly upon notice by the respective rights-holder.

In addition, please note the FLPIP has been recently amended to expressly provide that infringements carried out with the use of AI tools are punishable in the same manner as any other form of infringement. A user of AI tools who infringes intellectual property rights is subject to the same liability as someone who infringes without such tools.

Patent protection provides time-limited exclusivity of up to 20 years from the filing date and grants rights over the invention itself, meaning that the patent holder can enforce exclusivity even if a third party independently develops the same invention without knowledge of the patent.

Trade secret protection, by contrast, may last indefinitely as long as the information remains confidential and continues to provide a competitive advantage. It does not require disclosure, but it does not protect against independent development or reverse engineering carried out without improper means.

Enforcement considerations are often decisive. Patent protection is generally more straightforward to enforce because it is based on the granted claims, whereas trade secret protection requires demonstrating that the information is confidential, that it provides a competitive advantage, and that reasonable measures were taken to preserve its secrecy (such as NDAs, access restrictions, and security controls). In addition, it may be difficult in practice to prove access to or misuse of specific confidential information.

Accordingly, patents may be preferred when the invention can meet patentability requirements and disclosure is acceptable in exchange for stronger exclusionary rights. Trade secrets may be preferable when the subject matter is difficult to reverse engineer, not easily patentable, or when long-term confidentiality provides greater commercial value.

Cumulative protection of the same subject matter under multiple intellectual property regimes is permitted in Mexico and is relatively common across patents, industrial designs, copyrights, trade marks, and trade dress, provided that each right protects a different legally relevant aspect of the same subject matter.

In principle, there are no absolute statutory prohibitions on overlapping protection, as long as the requirements of each regime are independently satisfied and the protections are compatible. However, each IP right has a distinct scope. Patents protect technical inventions, provided they are new, involve an inventive step, and have industrial application, while granting exclusivity over the functional solution itself. Industrial designs protect the aesthetic appearance of products, excluding features dictated exclusively by technical or functional considerations. Trade mark and trade dress protection requires that the sign or appearance function as an indicator of commercial origin and excludes purely functional features or those necessary to achieve a technical result. Copyright protection is limited to original expressive elements and does not extend to utilitarian or functional aspects.

Conflicts arising from overlapping rights are generally resolved on the basis of priority and the existence of prior rights. For example, a trade mark registration incorporating a character, design, or other element may be challenged or declared invalid if a prior copyright holder demonstrates earlier creation or use of the work. Similarly, earlier patent or design rights may prevail over later trade mark claims if the latter attempt to appropriate functional or previously protected technical or aesthetic features.

Mexican law also restricts the registration or use of certain copyrighted titles or well-known elements as trade marks without authorisation from the copyright holder.

In practice, courts and administrative authorities assess overlapping claims by examining validity, scope, functionality, and temporal priority, ensuring that each right remains within its statutory limits and that enforcement does not result in unjustified monopolisation of the same protected subject matter across different IP regimes.

Confidential know-how or technical information can be protected as a trade secret before a patent application is filed, provided it meets the requirements of secrecy, economic value derived from confidentiality, and reasonable measures to maintain its protection.

During the patent application process, however, the disclosure required in the specification and claims means that the technical information is no longer confidential to the extent it is published or otherwise made accessible to the public. Once a patent application is published, the disclosed content generally loses its trade secret status, as public availability is incompatible with the requirement of secrecy.

As a result, patent protection and trade secret protection are, in practice, largely mutually exclusive for the same disclosed subject matter. Any know-how that is fully disclosed in a patent application will no longer qualify as a trade secret once it becomes public through publication.

After grant, expiry, or invalidation of a patent, trade secret protection does not revive for the disclosed subject matter. However, trade secret protection may continue to exist independently for any related information that was not disclosed in the patent application, provided that it remains confidential and continues to meet the legal requirements for trade secret protection.

The distinction lies in that an industrial design needs to be new, while a trade mark needs only to be distinctive. It does not need novelty in respect to existing designs, but only to be able to identify products or services. A trade dress is a specific kind of trade mark in Mexico and it can be registered if it is distinctive.

These forms of protection are cumulative and an industrial design could be potentially registered as a trade mark if it is distinctive. This is common for bottle shapes, for example. However, if the trade mark is filed or disclosed before the industrial design application is filed, this may destroy the novelty requirement.

The law expressly forbids the use and registration as trade marks of the titles and elements of copyrighted that are highly known in Mexico without authorisation of the copyright holder. A trade mark copying a work is therefore not registrable in Mexico. If the trade mark is pursued by the lawful owner of the copyright, then both protections can be accumulated. It is a common practice for copyright owners to register the titles and other relevant elements of their works as trade marks.

Most forms of infringement claims are brought before the IMPI, which determines each infringement alleged by the plaintiff. For each infringement found, a fine would be imposed on the infringer, plus additional fines for each day that the infringement persists. Damages may be sought in an ancillary proceeding upon conclusion of the main infringement proceeding or separately before a civil court with jurisdiction over the defendant. There is no prohibition on double recovery and the plaintiff may be entitled to damages for each IP right infringed.

Conflicts between national and international IP regimes in cross-border disputes are generally managed through the principle of territoriality. As a general rule, IP rights must be protected or recognised in Mexico in order to be enforceable against alleged infringers within Mexican territory. This is particularly relevant in trade mark disputes, where the absence of a Mexican registration may significantly limit enforcement options, even if the mark is protected abroad.

In contrast, copyright protection is less dependent on local registration or use, as foreign works are generally protected in Mexico under applicable international treaties, including the Berne Convention, provided they meet the basic requirements of protection. In practice, this results in a relatively uniform level of protection for copyrighted works regardless of their country of origin.

In cross-border disputes, conflicts between national and international regimes are typically resolved by applying Mexican substantive IP law to acts occurring within Mexico, while taking into account applicable international treaty obligations. This ensures consistency with treaty commitments without displacing the territorial application of domestic law.

Foreign judgments and arbitration awards may be recognised and enforced in Mexico through exequatur proceedings before Mexican courts, subject to compliance with applicable procedural requirements and the absence of public policy conflicts.