Patent protection is primarily governed by Andean Community Decision No 486, complemented by the Organic Code of the Social Economy of Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation (Código Orgánico de la Economía Social de los Conocimientos, Creatividad e Innovación – COESCCI) and regulations issued by the National Intellectual Rights Service (Servicio Nacional de Derechos Intelectuales – SENADI). Inventions are patentable if they meet novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability requirements, covering both products and processes.

Excluded subject matter includes discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, business methods, computer programmes “as such”, and medical or diagnostic methods, as well as plants, animals and essentially biological processes (except microorganisms).

AI-related inventions are assessed under general criteria. Utility models are also available for incremental innovations, subject to simplified procedures and shorter protection terms.

Patent prosecution is administrative in nature and is overseen by the Technical Patents Directorate of SENADI. Applications must comply with several formal requirements, including a description of the invention, claims, drawings (where applicable) and payment of the corresponding official fees.

The process involves several stages, including filing and formal examination, publication in the Official Gazette, substantive examination of patentability and ultimately the grant or refusal of the patent. If the patentability examination is favourable, the patent is granted, conferring exclusive rights for a period of 20 years.

The patent grant process typically takes between three and five years, depending on the complexity of the invention and the presence of opposition or office actions.

Estimated costs range from USD1,100 to USD1,800, including official filing, formal examination, substantive examination and first annuity fees. These may vary depending on the number of claims. Fee reductions of 50% to 90% are available for SMEs, researchers and artisans.

Foreign applicants must act through duly authorised local counsel. While domestic applicants are not strictly required to appoint legal representation, it is recommended due to the complexity of the process.

A granted patent confers on its owner the exclusive right to exploit the invention and to prevent third parties from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented product or process without consent. For process patents, protection extends to products directly obtained from the patented process. The standard term is 20 years from the filing date, subject to payment of annual maintenance fees. Non-payment results in lapse, although a six-month grace period is available to cure default upon payment of outstanding fees and surcharges. No supplementary protection certificates or patent term extensions are available, including in pharmaceutical and agrochemical fields.

The right to apply for and obtain a patent initially belongs to the inventor or inventors, who may transfer such right to third parties, including employers, through contract or other legal arrangements. Where an invention is created within the scope of employment or using the employer’s resources, the economic rights generally belong to the employer, unless otherwise agreed. The inventor retains the right to be named as such.

In relation to universities and research institutions, ownership of inventions developed under research projects or employment relationships is typically governed by internal regulations and specific agreements. However, inventorship always vests in the natural person who created the invention.

Patent assignments and licences must be made in writing. To be enforceable against third parties, they must be recorded with SENADI. Without such recordal, they are valid between the parties but not enforceable against third parties.

Direct infringement arises where a third party, without the consent of the patent holder, performs any of the exclusive acts conferred by the patent, including making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the patented product, or using the patented process. In process patents, protection also extends to products directly obtained by the process. There is no specific statutory regime for indirect infringement, although civil liability may arise under general principles for acts of facilitation or inducement.

The scope of protection is primarily determined by the claims, interpreted in light of the description and drawings. The law does not expressly provide for a doctrine of equivalents, although functional and technical equivalence may be considered in practice when assessing infringement.

Available defences include prior use rights, exhaustion of rights and compulsory licences granted on grounds of public interest, lack of exploitation or anti-competitive practices. Fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations are not expressly regulated under Ecuadorian patent law.

Patent infringement disputes in Ecuador are heard by specialised civil courts in IP matters, applying Andean Community Decision 486. Proceedings are brought before competent civil judges. Administrative matters relating to the grant or invalidity of a patent fall within the competence of the National Service for Intellectual Rights (SENADI), without prejudice to the possibility of raising invalidity before the courts within contentious proceedings.

Timelines vary depending on complexity, but first-instance proceedings typically take between one and three years, with appeals potentially extending the overall duration. The Ecuadorian system is not bifurcated, so issues of validity and infringement may be addressed within the same judicial proceeding. Where parallel administrative proceedings before SENADI exist, the court may continue hearing the infringement case, taking into account the status of the administrative process on a case-by-case basis.

Interim relief is available, including suspension of infringing acts, seizure or confiscation of infringing goods and other measures aimed at preventing continuation of the infringement. Ex parte (inaudita parte) measures may also be granted where urgency or risk of irreparable harm is demonstrated.

Available remedies include injunctions ordering cessation of infringement, damages (including loss of profits), restitution of unlawfully obtained benefits, and orders for the withdrawal from the market or destruction of infringing goods. Costs rules allow for the recovery of court costs, including attorneys’ fees; however, their award is subject to judicial assessment of reasonableness and proportionality.

In Ecuador, trade mark protection is primarily governed by COESCCI. However, as Ecuador is a member of the Andean Community, the Andean Community Decision 486 plays a central role. In practice, this regional framework establishes the key rules for registration, scope of protection and enforcement.

A broad range of signs may be protected as trade marks, provided they are distinctive and capable of identifying the commercial origin of goods or services. These include words and brand names, logos and designs, shapes (such as product packaging), colours or combinations of colours (in certain cases) and sounds. Other non-traditional marks, such as scents, are generally not accepted in practice due to challenges in their representation and examination.

Ecuador operates under a first-to-file system, meaning that rights are generally granted to the first party to file an application, rather than the first to use the mark. As a result, unregistered or common law trade marks are not formally recognised.

It is also important to note that Ecuador differentiates between trade marks, commercial slogans and trade names as distinct types of distinctive signs. While the registration process is broadly similar, each has specific characteristics. Commercial slogans must be linked to a specific trade mark and will follow its legal status, including its class and term of protection. Trade names, on the other hand, may be protected through use in commerce, meaning that rights can arise even without formal registration.

The key requirement for trade mark protection in Ecuador is distinctiveness. A sign must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one business from those of others. Signs that are generic, descriptive or commonly used in the relevant market are generally not registrable unless they have acquired distinctiveness through use.

Use in commerce is not required to obtain a trade mark registration. Protection is granted under a first-to-file system, meaning that priority is given to the first applicant rather than the first user. However, use becomes relevant at later stages, particularly to defend rights or to avoid cancellation actions based on non-use.

Acquired distinctiveness may be established when a sign that is not inherently distinctive becomes associated, in the minds of consumers, with a particular business. In practice, this is demonstrated through evidence such as the duration and extent of use, advertising and marketing efforts, sales figures, market presence and consumer recognition. The more consistent and robust the evidence, the greater the likelihood of overcoming a descriptiveness objection.

Ecuador also recognises and protects well-known or famous marks, even if they are not registered locally. Under the Andean Community Decision 486, such marks may be enforced where their recognition in the relevant sector can be demonstrated, regardless of whether they are registered in Ecuador or in other Andean Community member countries such as Colombia, Peru or Bolivia. This protection is not limited to identical goods or services and may extend further depending on the level of recognition and reputation of the mark.

Registration is the most effective way to secure and enforce rights. While certain signs, such as trade names, may be protected through use, enforcement without registration is generally more limited and complex.

Trade mark applications are filed before SENADI. The process typically includes:

• a formal examination;
• publication for opposition;
• a 30-working-day opposition period; and
• a substantive examination.

If no objections or oppositions arise, registration may be granted in approximately 6–8 months. However, in practice, the process may take longer, particularly if oppositions or office actions are issued.

In terms of costs, the official government fee is approximately USD208 per class. However, entrepreneurs and SMEs that are duly registered as such before the relevant authority may benefit from a 50% reduction, bringing the official fee down to USD104 per class. In addition, professional fees will apply and typically range between USD250 and USD500 per application, depending on the attorney and the complexity of the matter.

Ecuador does not allow multi-class applications. Therefore, a separate application must be filed for each class, and each class will be subject to its corresponding official and professional fees.

A registered trade mark is protected for a period of ten years from the date of registration. This protection can be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods.

Renewal is relatively straightforward. The owner must file a renewal request before SENADI within the six months prior to the expiration date. A grace period is also available after expiration without the need for the payment of additional fees.

Although use is not required to obtain or renew a trade mark, genuine use becomes important after registration. A mark may be subject to cancellation if it has not been used for a continuous period of three years in Ecuador. In general terms, genuine use refers to the real and effective use of the mark in the market, in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered. This may include use on products, packaging, labels, advertising materials or websites, or in the provision of services.

Use does not necessarily have to be extensive, but it must be consistent with the commercial purpose of the mark and not merely symbolic or intended only to preserve the registration. Evidence such as invoices, marketing materials, commercial documents and proof of sales is typically required to demonstrate use.

If a mark is not used for the required period, it may be challenged and cancelled, either totally or partially, depending on the scope of non-use. This means that protection can be lost for all or some of the registered goods or services.

A registered trade mark in Ecuador grants its owner the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered, as well as the right to prevent third parties from using identical or confusingly similar signs without authorisation. This includes use on products, packaging, labels and advertising, and in any form of commercial communication. The owner may also take action against uses that could give rise to confusion, association, unfair advantage or dilution, including in relation to well-known marks.

While rights are primarily acquired through registration, certain signs, such as trade names, may also generate rights through use. However, in practice, registered trade marks provide a more robust and effective basis for enforcement, particularly when taking action against third parties.

These rights are subject to certain limitations and defences aimed at preserving fair competition. For example, third parties may use their own name, geographic indications or descriptive elements in good faith, provided such use is limited to informational or descriptive purposes, does not function as a trade mark and does not create confusion in the market.

It is also permissible to refer to a trade mark to indicate the existence, availability or compatibility of products or services – eg, for the purposes of comparative advertising – as long as such use is made in good faith and does not mislead consumers as to the origin of the goods or services.

In Ecuador, trade mark infringement generally occurs when a third party uses, without authorisation, a sign that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trade mark in connection with goods or services in a way that may cause confusion or a risk of association. This includes use on products, packaging, advertising or any commercial activity involving the sign. It also covers broader situations, such as taking unfair advantage of a mark’s reputation or weakening its distinctiveness (dilution), particularly in the case of well-known marks.

Although Ecuador does not formally recognise “passing off” as a separate legal doctrine, similar situations may be addressed through trade mark infringement rules or unfair competition principles, especially where there is a likelihood of confusion or misleading conduct in the marketplace.

Trade mark disputes may be handled through both administrative and judicial routes. Administrative actions, such as oppositions, cancellations or infringement claims, are filed before SENADI. Judicial actions, including appeals and civil enforcement, are heard by specialised administrative courts. In addition, criminal courts may hear cases involving counterfeiting or intentional infringement.

A range of civil and administrative remedies is available. These include injunctions to stop the infringing activity, removal of infringing signs from the market, seizure or destruction of infringing goods, and compensation for damages. Administrative authorities may also impose fines.

Ecuador also provides border enforcement mechanisms. Customs authorities may detain or suspend the release of goods suspected of infringing trade mark rights, either upon request of the rights-holder or ex officio in certain cases. These measures are commonly used in anti-counterfeiting efforts.

In more serious cases, criminal sanctions may apply, particularly in cases involving counterfeiting or wilful infringement. These may include fines and, in certain circumstances, imprisonment.

In summary, Ecuador offers a comprehensive enforcement framework combining administrative, civil and criminal mechanisms, with additional support from customs authorities to combat counterfeiting and protect trade mark rights.

In Ecuador, copyright protection is fundamentally enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic, and domestically, the primary legislation is COESCCI.

At the international level, the country is a signatory to key treaties, including the Berne Convention and agreements administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Ecuadorian law protects all original intellectual creations of a literary or artistic nature. This protection spans a broad spectrum of works, regardless of their genre, merit or purpose. The main categories include:

• literary works, articles, novels and short stories;
• software, computer programmes and databases;
• cinematographic, audiovisual, photographic and dramatic works;
• architectural projects, blueprints and engineering designs; and
• derivative works, adaptations and remixes, provided they meet the originality threshold.

Ecuadorian IP law maintains a clear distinction between industrial property and copyright. Industrial designs fall strictly under the industrial property regime and require formal registration to be protected. However, works of applied art can benefit from copyright protection, provided that their artistic value can be conceptually separated from the functional or industrial nature of the object to which they are incorporated.

For a work to be protected in Ecuador, the essential requirement is originality. The work must be the result of the creator’s independent intellectual effort, reflecting their personal touch. Furthermore, the work must be expressed or fixed in any medium or format, whether tangible or intangible, analogue or digital. Mere ideas, procedures or mathematical concepts are excluded from protection.

Copyright protection arises automatically from the exact moment of the work’s creation and fixation. Although protection is automatic, registering the work with SENADI is highly recommended. The registration is declaratory rather than constitutive of rights. Its primary advantage is that it grants a legal presumption of authorship, serving as robust evidentiary support that facilitates the defence of the work in infringement cases, commercial negotiations or litigation.

Under Ecuadorian law, only a natural person (an individual) can be considered an “author” and thus the original titleholder of moral rights. When two or more natural persons actively participate in the original creation of a work, they are recognised as joint authors. Legal entities or corporations cannot be authors, but they can acquire, hold and exercise patrimonial rights derivatively.

The treatment of employee-created works is carefully regulated to balance labour and creative interests. Unless explicitly agreed otherwise in writing, it is legally presumed that the economic rights to works created during the fulfilment of employment duties are transferred to the employer. This assignment is strictly limited to the customary activities of the employer at the time of creation.

For independent contractors and commissioned works, a similar presumption applies: economic rights are presumed transferred to the commissioning party, strictly for the purposes outlined in the contract. Nonetheless, COESCCI guarantees that the natural author always retains their unwaivable moral rights. Furthermore, Ecuadorian law establishes an unrenounceable right for creators to receive equitable remuneration for the exploitation of their work, even if economic rights have been assigned.

Ecuadorian copyright law grants owners exclusive control over the economic exploitation of their works. These economic rights empower the owner to authorise, prohibit or licence various actions. Prominent rights include:

• the reproduction of the work in any format;
• public distribution through sale, rental or lending;
• communication to the public, including making works available on digital platforms; and
• the translation, adaptation, arrangement or other transformation of the work.

The Ecuadorian legal framework is highly protective of moral rights, acknowledging the intrinsic bond between the author and their creation. These rights are perpetual, inalienable, unattachable, imprescriptible and unwaivable. Key moral rights include the right of paternity (to claim authorship) and the right of integrity (to object to any mutilation or distortion that harms the author’s honour or reputation).

Because they are unwaivable, moral rights cannot be commercially assigned, sold or licensed through contracts. However, upon the author’s death, the exercise of certain moral rights (specifically paternity and integrity) passes to their legal heirs through succession. Heirs hold a statutory mandate to protect the deceased creator's legacy and reputation.

In Ecuador, moral rights are perpetual and never expire. Conversely, economic rights have a defined temporal duration, designed to incentivise creativity and eventually enrich the public domain. The general rule is that economic protection lasts for the author's entire life and extends for seventy years after their death, calculated from the first of January of the year following their passing.

Ecuadorian regulations provide mechanisms to protect authors against the inactivity of assignees. If an author assigns their exploitation rights, but the assignee breaches essential obligations (e.g., failing to publish the work within the agreed timeframe or unjustifiably withholding royalties), the author may demand the termination of the contract. This results in the automatic reversion of the economic rights back to the original creator.

Separate from economic reversion rights, the law recognises the moral right of withdrawal. This allows an author to withdraw their work from circulation due to a change in their intellectual or moral convictions.

Ecuadorian law provides for statutory limitations and exceptions that allow the use of protected works without the author’s authorisation, provided certain conditions are met. These include, among others, quotations for purposes such as research, criticism or news reporting, subject to proper attribution of the author and source.

Other permitted uses may include transformative uses such as parody, as long as they do not create confusion with the original work or cause unjustified harm, as well as limited reproduction for personal and private purposes, provided there is no direct or indirect commercial intent.

In practice, courts and administrative authorities interpret these exceptions in line with the “Three-Step Test” under the Berne Convention, which forms part of the applicable legal framework. Under this standard, the use must:

• fall within a specific exception;
• not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work;
• not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right-holder;
• be expressly covered by a special case outlined in the statute;
• not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work; and
• not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights-holder.

Copyright infringement in Ecuador generally includes the unauthorised reproduction, distribution, communication to the public or transformation of a protected work, unless a statutory limitation or exception applies. This may cover both physical and digital uses, such as the unauthorised use of software, audiovisual content or other protected materials.

Enforcement may be pursued through both administrative and judicial channels. SENADI has authority to hear infringement actions and may order measures such as the cessation of infringing acts, inspections and the seizure or removal of infringing goods. Precautionary measures are also available to prevent the continuation of the infringement.

Civil courts may award damages and other remedies, typically based on criteria such as the right-holder’s losses, the infringer’s gains or a reasonable licence fee. In more serious cases, particularly where infringement is carried out on a commercial scale, criminal liability may arise, including fines and, in certain circumstances, imprisonment under applicable criminal legislation.

Ecuadorian copyright law protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas, methods or functionality. In the case of software, protection extends to computer programmes as literary works, including at least source code and object code.

When assessing infringement, the analysis should focus on whether the defendant reproduced original protected elements of the work, rather than on a purely quantitative comparison. In software cases, this may include literal copying and, in some circumstances, non-literal copying, to the extent that what is taken reflects the author’s original expression rather than purely functional, technical or standard elements.

Given the technical complexity of these disputes, expert evidence is often important in helping courts or SENADI assess similarities in code or programme structure and determine whether they stem from unlawful copying or from functional constraints, interoperability requirements or industry standards.

In Ecuador, collecting societies operate under the strict supervision and authorisation of SENADI. They are non-profit organisations responsible for collecting and distributing royalties. They are legally required to publish their by-laws and distribution rules, and negotiate agreements with user associations. Tariffs set by these societies must adhere to the principles of proportionality, fairness and transparency. They cannot be established arbitrarily and must reflect the actual revenue the user derives from exploiting the work.

Regarding compulsory licensing, the Ecuadorian system is restrictive: equitable remuneration rights prevail for certain specific uses, whereas pure compulsory licences are generally confined to the patent realm.

When conflicts arise between commercial users and collecting societies regarding tariff amounts or royalty payments, the law encourages alternative dispute resolution. Parties can submit their disputes to SENADI’s specialised Mediation and Arbitration Center. If no agreement is reached, the administrative authority has the power to resolve the conflict, set a provisional tariff or impose sanctions for abusive practices, leaving the ordinary judicial route available for subsequent appeals.

Industrial design protection is primarily governed by Andean Community Decision No 486, complemented by COESCCI and regulations issued by SENADI.

Protection covers the ornamental appearance of a product, including its shape, configuration, lines and contours, as well as the combination of colours or textures, provided that it is novel and has individual character. It may also extend to packaging, to the extent that such features are not exclusively dictated by technical function.

Trade dress is not regulated as an autonomous category under Ecuadorian law. However, in practice, certain aspects of product presentation may be protected through a combination of industrial design rights and unfair competition rules, where the overall appearance of the product or packaging is distinctive and capable of identifying its commercial origin.

An industrial design must be new and have individual character, meaning it must not have been previously disclosed and must produce a different overall impression on the informed user compared to existing designs. Features dictated solely by the technical function of the product are excluded from protection.

Industrial design protection is, in principle, registration-based. However, limited protection may arise under unfair competition rules where the appearance of the product or its presentation has acquired distinctiveness in the market and its imitation is likely to create a risk of confusion. In such cases, this protection does not amount to a registered design right, but it may serve as a complementary remedy against the copying of trade dress-like elements.

Industrial design applications are filed with the Patent Technical Directorate of SENADI.

The procedure includes several stages, such as filing and formal examination, publication in the Official Gazette, substantive examination of novelty and registrability, and ultimately the granting or refusal of the industrial design registration. Industrial design protection is valid for ten years from the filing date and is not renewable, in accordance with the applicable Andean regulations.

Official fees are relatively moderate and mainly consist of filing and registration fees, which amount to approximately USD526.46. This fee applies both to the application and the grant of rights. Discounts of up to 90% are available for certain applicants, such as artisans or researchers.

Industrial design infringement occurs when a third party uses, manufactures, imports or markets a product that reproduces or imitates a registered design without authorisation, creating a similar overall impression.

Remedies include injunctions to cease the infringement, damages, restitution of unlawfully obtained benefits and the withdrawal or destruction of infringing goods. Interim relief may also be granted, including ex parte measures such as seizure or suspension of commercialisation. In addition, border measures are available, allowing the suspension of clearance of suspected infringing goods at the request of the rights-holder.

A feature is considered “solely dictated by function” when its shape or appearance is indispensable to achieve a technical result and does not serve an ornamental purpose. If alternative designs exist to achieve the same function, the feature is generally not regarded as excluded on functional grounds and may still be protectable.

Partial designs are, in principle, protectable to the extent that the claimed features meet the requirements of novelty and individual character. Protection is limited to the specifically claimed visual aspects, and exclusions apply only to elements that are purely functional or lack independent ornamental character.

A design may be refused or subsequently invalidated if it is shown that its appearance is exclusively determined by technical necessity, leaving no room for design freedom. In such cases, it is considered not to meet the protection requirements set out under Andean Community Decision No 486.

Trade secret protection in Ecuador is primarily governed by Andean Community Decision No 486, particularly Articles 258 to 266, and is complemented by COESCCI, which reinforces confidentiality safeguards in proceedings involving trade secrets.

A trade secret is any undisclosed information lawfully controlled by a natural or legal person capable of being used in productive, industrial or commercial activity – and of being transferred to a third party. It may include technical, scientific, industrial, commercial organisational or financial information, such as product characteristics, manufacturing processes or distribution and marketing methods. Protection arises if three cumulative elements are met: the information is secret, it has commercial value because it is secret and its legitimate holder has adopted reasonable measures to keep it confidential.

Owners must take reasonable measures to preserve secrecy, as protection under Decision 486 depends on the information having been subject to such measures by its legitimate holder. In practice, Ecuadorian law expressly supports confidentiality warnings, contractual or employment-based duties of reserve, and confidentiality clauses in agreements involving technical knowledge, assistance or engineering services.

Disclosure to employees or third parties does not automatically destroy protection, provided access is given on a confidential basis and the information remains secret. Employees and any person who gains access through work, professional functions or business relations, after being warned of its confidential nature, must not use or disclose it without justification and consent. Likewise, an authorised third party may use the secret, but must not disclose it unless otherwise agreed. Unauthorised disclosure or use in breach of contractual or labour-based confidentiality obligations constitutes unfair competition.

Misappropriation of trade secrets in Ecuador is treated as an act of unfair competition under Decision 486. It includes:

• unauthorised use of a trade secret accessed under a contractual or employment-based duty of confidentiality;
• unauthorised disclosure for personal gain, third-party benefit or to harm the legitimate holder; and
• unlawful acquisition or use by means contrary to honest commercial practices, such as industrial espionage, breach of contract, abuse of confidence, disloyalty or inducement to commit such acts.

Employee disputes are therefore typically addressed through labour or contractual confidentiality duties, while disputes involving business partners or competitors are assessed under the same unfair competition framework and any agreed confidentiality obligations. Procedurally, the affected party may seek relief before the competent authority, and Ecuadorian law supplements this with judicial and administrative enforcement mechanisms, subject to specific safeguards to preserve confidentiality during the proceedings.

Trade secret protection in Ecuador lasts for as long as the conditions of Article 260 of Decision 486 remain satisfied; namely, the information must remain secret, retain commercial value because of that secrecy and continue to be subject to reasonable measures to preserve confidentiality. There is therefore no fixed statutory term.

If the information must be disclosed by law or court order, it is not treated as a trade secret for those purposes. By contrast, disclosure to a public authority in order to obtain licences, permits, authorisations or registrations does not, by itself, place the information in the public domain. Authorised disclosure to a third party also does not automatically extinguish protection, provided confidentiality is preserved; Decision 486 expressly allows authorised use or transfer and imposes non-disclosure obligations on authorised recipients unless otherwise agreed.

Civil remedies are available through both judicial and administrative enforcement. These include injunction-style relief, immediate cessation of infringing acts, removal of infringing materials from commercial channels, temporary closure of the infringer’s establishment, damages and measures to preserve or obtain evidence. Ecuadorian law also allows provisional measures before or during the action.

As to criminal sanctions, the materials reviewed do not establish a specific criminal regime for trade secret theft; Decision 486 expressly requires criminal procedures only for trade mark counterfeiting. Confidentiality during litigation is specifically protected by Article 545 of COESCCI, which requires the authority to adopt all necessary measures to preserve secrecy, limiting access to the authority and appointed experts to what is strictly necessary and subjecting them to strict confidentiality obligations.

In Ecuador, know-how is understood as non-patented, confidential, undisclosed and identifiable industrial knowledge with economic value for the development and operation of a business. The Commerce Code expressly refers to manufacturing knowledge, service procedures, technical-business solutions and complementary information linked to patented technology that is not itself patentable. It differs from trade secrets in that Ecuadorian legislation does not regulate know-how as an autonomous IP right; rather, know-how is mainly recognised in the context of licensing and commercial exploitation, whereas undisclosed business information is specifically protected under the trade secret regime of Decision 486.

Accordingly, know-how is protected primarily through contract, confidentiality obligations and commercial practice, with relevant statutory support found in the Commerce Code and, where the information remains secret and commercially valuable, in the unfair competition and trade secret provisions of Decision 486.

Protectable know-how in Ecuador typically includes manufacturing know-how, formulas, recipes, tools, technical processes, service procedures, technical-business solutions, supplier-selection methods, staff training methods, quality-control methods and complementary information that allows more effective exploitation of patented technology. The Commerce Code also recognises know-how covering inventions kept outside the patent system for business reasons.

To receive protection, know-how must be non-patented, confidential, undisclosed and identifiable, and must have significant patrimonial value for the development and exploitation of the business. The Code does not impose a formal novelty requirement in the patent-law sense, but excludes information that is public, obvious to a skilled person based on previously available information or legally required to be disclosed. In practice, secrecy and economic value are therefore essential.

Ecuadorian law does not establish a detailed standalone ownership regime specifically for employee-created know-how. In practice, ownership is primarily determined by contract and the business context, although the Commerce Code recognises the knowledge used in the activity as part of the enterprise. For contractors, consultants and joint development partners, rights should likewise be allocated contractually; in joint ventures, the agreement must be in writing and should regulate control, direction and the parties’ obligations.

Employees are, however, subject to implied duties of loyalty and confidentiality. The Commerce Code prohibits employees from engaging, without authorisation, in competing dealings of the same kind as the business in which they serve, while Decision 486 requires any person with access to confidential business information through employment or business relations to refrain from using or disclosing it without justification and consent.

In Ecuador, know-how is primarily protected through contractual confidentiality mechanisms. The most common tools are written know-how licence agreements, standalone non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses, non-use and non-transfer provisions, and post-termination obligations requiring the return of technical documentation and cessation of use.

The Commerce Code expressly requires the licensee to keep know-how confidential, prohibits disclosure, sublicensing or assignment without the licensor’s authorisation, and requires the return of relevant documentation at the end of the contract. Decision 486 also recognises confidentiality clauses in agreements involving technical knowledge, technical assistance or engineering services, and imposes non-disclosure duties on authorised recipients and persons who gain access through work or business relations.

Know-how may be licensed independently in Ecuador as a distinct subject matter under the Commerce Code, which regulates licence agreements over non-patented, confidential, undisclosed and identifiable industrial knowledge. The holder of undisclosed information may also authorise its use, enjoyment or exploitation by a third party, so in practice know-how can be commercially transferred separately from patents, although it often overlaps with trade secret protection where the information remains secret.

As for formalities, the sources reviewed do not establish a specific requirement of recordal, notarisation or registration for know-how licences comparable to the express rules applicable to patent assignments and patent licences under Decision 486. As a know-how licence is regulated as a contract, it must satisfy the general validity requirements applicable to acts and contracts under the Civil Code, namely legal capacity, valid consent, a lawful object and a lawful cause.

Accordingly, the enforceability of a know-how licence in Ecuador depends less on registration formalities than on a clear and properly drafted contractual framework that defines the permitted scope of use, remuneration, confidentiality obligations, restrictions on sublicensing or onward transfer, and return or destruction of documentation upon termination.

Reverse engineering is not generally regulated in Ecuador as a standalone rule for know-how. However, COESCCI expressly permits reverse engineering in the specific context of software, where it allows reverse-engineering activities on a legitimately obtained copy solely to achieve operational compatibility between programmes or for research and educational purposes.

Outside of that specific software rule, the legality of reverse engineering in relation to know-how will generally depend on whether the information remains confidential and protected as undisclosed business information, and on any contractual restrictions agreed by the parties. Contractual clauses prohibiting reverse engineering should therefore be enforceable in principle, especially where they operate as confidentiality and non-use protections over technical knowledge or trade secrets, provided they do not conflict with mandatory law or competition rules.

Ecuador does not recognise a sui generis database right. Protection is derived from existing legal regimes. Under COESCCI, copyright protects the original selection, co-ordination or arrangement of data in a database, but not the underlying data itself. This underlying information may, however, be protected under trade secret law, provided it is not generally known, has commercial value due to its secrecy and is subject to reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality.

In practice, protection is often reinforced through contractual arrangements, such as confidentiality agreements and access restrictions. In addition, where the information includes personal data, its collection and use may be subject to the Organic Law on Personal Data Protection, which imposes specific compliance obligations.

Web scraping and data extraction are not specifically regulated as standalone concepts under Ecuadorian law. Their legality depends on the circumstances and may give rise to liability where they involve copyright infringement (eg, copying protected database structures), breach of contractual terms, misappropriation of trade secrets or acts of unfair competition.

When assessing the copyrightability of works generated with artificial intelligence (AI), Ecuadorian law follows the general principles set out in COESCCI. Authorship is reserved to natural persons, meaning that copyright protection is based on human intellectual creation. As AI systems do not have legal personality, they cannot be considered authors or holders of rights.

In practice, the key factor is the extent of human creative contribution. Where AI is used as a tool to assist in the creation process, such as for drafting, editing or generating ideas, the resulting work may be protected, provided that there is sufficient human input and control over the final output. By contrast, works generated entirely autonomously by AI, without meaningful human intervention, are unlikely to qualify for copyright protection.

From a practical perspective, companies typically rely on contractual arrangements (eg, work-for-hire, assignment or licensing agreements) to secure ownership of economic rights. It is also advisable to maintain clear internal records of the creative process in order to demonstrate human authorship and originality, particularly where AI tools are involved.

In Ecuador, the use of copyrighted works or trade secrets in training datasets may give rise to significant legal risks if carried out without proper authorisation. The reproduction or processing of protected works without consent may constitute copyright infringement, particularly where protected elements are used. Likewise, the use of confidential information may amount to trade secret misappropriation where such information is obtained, used, or disclosed in breach of confidentiality obligations.

Ecuadorian law does not provide a specific exception tailored to data processing or training activities. As a result, any such use must be assessed under the general framework of copyright limitations and trade secret protection. In practice, lawful use will depend on factors such as the existence of consent, the nature of the use and whether it affects the normal exploitation of the work or the legitimate interests of the right-holder.

The enforcement landscape combines administrative and judicial mechanisms. SENADI may order measures such as the cessation of infringing acts, inspections and the seizure or removal of infringing materials. Courts may also grant injunctions and damages, typically calculated based on the right-holder’s losses, the infringer’s gains or a reasonable licence fee.

In addition, in cases involving trade secrets, authorities may impose confidentiality safeguards during proceedings, limiting access to sensitive information to what is strictly necessary. In more serious cases, particularly where infringement is carried out on a commercial scale or involves bad faith conduct, criminal liability may arise.

From a procedural standpoint, while SENADI holds statutory authority to conduct IP infringement inspections, proving the illicit use of protected works within AI systems demands highly specialised forensic IT analysis. Given the technical opacity of these algorithms, the reversal of the burden of proof – expressly established in the COESCCI for process patents – becomes critically relevant.

Under this doctrine, if the resulting output is identical to a protected work and the rights-holder cannot reasonably determine the exact computational process used, the evidentiary burden shifts to the defendant, who must prove that their AI model employed an independent, non-infringing method. This legal presumption is vital for plaintiffs seeking to overcome the “black-box” barrier inherent in machine learning models.

Generally, platforms benefit from safe harbour provisions regarding third-party content, provided they lack actual knowledge of the illegality and act expeditiously to remove the infringing material upon notification (notice and takedown procedures). However, if a generative AI platform actively intervenes in the structuring, curation or “creation” of the infringing content, it forfeits its neutral intermediary status and may face direct or joint and several liability.

In Ecuador, the choice between different forms of IP protection depends on the nature of the asset, the business strategy and the level of disclosure the owner is willing to accept. The same subject matter may be protected in different ways – for example, a product may combine patent protection for its technical features, trade mark protection for its brand and copyright for creative elements.

In general, patent protection is preferred for technical inventions that meet the legal requirements and where the owner is willing to disclose the invention in exchange for strong, time-limited exclusivity (typically 20 years). By contrast, trade secret protection is more suitable where the value lies in confidentiality and the information is not easily reverse-engineered. Trade secrets do not require registration and may last indefinitely, provided secrecy is maintained.

Key factors influencing this choice include disclosure versus confidentiality, duration, ease of enforcement and the risk of reverse engineering. In practice, businesses often adopt a combined strategy, protecting certain aspects through patents while keeping others as trade secrets to maximise their competitive advantage.

Ecuador allows cumulative protection, meaning that the same subject matter may be protected under different IP regimes, provided that each set of legal requirements is independently met. For example, a product may be protected by copyright (artistic elements), industrial design (appearance) and trade mark law (distinctive signs).

There is no absolute prohibition on overlapping protection, but each right applies only to the elements that meet its specific criteria. In particular, purely functional features cannot be protected as trade marks or designs, and trade mark law cannot be used to obtain perpetual protection over elements that should remain in the public domain.

In practice, authorities assess each right separately, focusing on the nature of the element involved (functional, distinctive or artistic) and the likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage.

Before filing a patent application, trade secret protection is commonly used to safeguard technical information, particularly where premature disclosure could affect patentability. During the patent process, it is common to adopt a combined protection strategy, whereby certain elements are disclosed in the patent application while other aspects.

The publication of a patent application has a decisive effect on trade secret protection. Any information disclosed in the patent specification ceases to be secret and therefore loses trade secret protection. Once disclosed, such information enters the public domain and cannot be reclaimed as confidential, regardless of the outcome of the patent application.

However, trade secret protection may continue to exist for undisclosed information, even after the publication, grant, expiry or invalidation of a patent. This includes complementary know-how, improvements or technical information that was never made public and continues to meet the legal requirements of secrecy, commercial value and reasonable protection measures.

In practice, the key consideration is control over disclosure. Patent protection requires full disclosure of the invention, while trade secret protection depends on maintaining confidentiality. As a result, businesses must carefully determine which elements to disclose and which to retain as trade secrets in order to maximise long-term protection.

In Ecuador, the distinction between trade marks, trade dress and industrial designs is based on the function and purpose of the sign or feature being protected, rather than on formal labels.

A trade mark protects signs that identify the commercial origin of goods or services. This may include words, logos and three-dimensional shapes, such as product shapes or packaging, provided they are distinctive and capable of indicating origin.

While Ecuadorian law does not expressly regulate “trade dress” as a separate category, it may be protected through trade mark law or unfair competition rules, depending on the case. In practice, trade dress refers to the overall appearance of a product or its packaging (such as shape, configuration, colours or presentation) where this has acquired distinctiveness and is recognised by consumers as indicating a specific business origin.

By contrast, an industrial design protects the aesthetic or ornamental aspects of a product, such as its shape, configuration or surface decoration, regardless of whether it indicates commercial origin. Protection is granted for novel designs and is time-limited.

Product shapes and packaging may, in certain circumstances, be protected simultaneously as trade marks and industrial designs, but only if the requirements of each regime are independently satisfied.

In Ecuador, logos, artistic elements and branding may benefit from cumulative protection under both copyright and trade mark law, provided they meet the requirements of each regime. Copyright protects the original artistic expression of a work, while trade mark law protects its function as a distinctive sign identifying the commercial origin of goods or services. For example, a logo may be protected by copyright as an artistic work and, at the same time, registered as a trade mark if it is used to distinguish products or services in the market.

There is no strict prohibition on overlapping protection, but each right has a different scope and purpose. Copyright does not protect the use of a sign as an indicator of origin, and trade mark law does not protect the artistic value of a work as such. In practice, enforcement will depend on which right is being invoked and the specific element being protected.

Trade mark rights cannot be used to extend exclusive control over purely artistic elements beyond their function as identifiers, and copyright protection cannot prevent legitimate trade mark use where no confusion or unfair advantage arises.

In Ecuador, claims based on different IP rights may generally be brought in the same judicial proceedings, provided they arise from the same set of facts. This is consistent with general procedural rules that allow the joinder of related claims to ensure efficiency and avoid inconsistent decisions. In practice, it is common to combine claims (eg, trade mark infringement and unfair competition, or trade secret misappropriation and contractual breach) where they are factually connected.

When multiple infringements are established, courts typically assess each right independently, applying the relevant legal test to determine liability. However, remedies are evaluated in an integrated manner, taking into account the overall harm caused by the conduct. Available remedies may include injunctions, damages and corrective measures such as removal of infringing goods from the market.

In summary, multiple IP claims may be pursued in a single action, but courts will avoid overlapping remedies and ensure that compensation remains proportionate to the damage suffered.

In Ecuador, conflicts between national and international IP regimes are managed through a hierarchical and co-ordinated system. As a member of the Andean Community, Ecuador applies the Andean Community Decision 486 as a supranational framework that prevails over domestic legislation in matters of industrial property. National laws, such as COESCCI, complement this regime but must be interpreted consistently with it.

In cross-border disputes, courts and authorities generally apply the principle of territoriality, meaning that IP rights are enforced within the jurisdiction where protection is sought. However, international and regional instruments play a key role in ensuring consistency, particularly in areas such as priority rights, well-known marks and minimum protection standards. Ecuador is also bound by international treaties – eg, the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (the “TRIPS Agreement”) – which influence interpretation and enforcement.

In practice, conflicts are resolved by:

• applying Andean Community law as the primary source for industrial property;
• interpreting national law in line with regional and international obligations; and
• considering foreign elements (such as prior rights or reputation abroad) where relevant.

In addition, national courts may rely on interpretations issued by the Andean Tribunal of Justice, which ensures uniform application of Andean law across member countries.