Answer ... The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) is the administrative authority responsible for industrial property matters, which has the authority to conduct nullity proceedings:

• ex officio;
• at the request of a party; or
• at the request of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office where the federation has an interest in the matter (Articles 5(II) and 159 of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property).

Answer ... Under Mexican patent law, the validity of an issued patent can be challenged through a declaration of nullity, which seeks to retroactively revoke the effects of the patent to the filing date of the respective application (Article 159 of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property).

Answer ... The grounds on which to invalidate an issued patent according to Article 154 of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property are as follows:

• The protected subject matter:
• • is not considered an invention;
  • is not patentable; or
  • lacks novelty, inventive step or industrial application;
• The application does not disclose the invention in a sufficiently clear and complete way, so that it can be performed by a technician of the art;
• The claims exceed the disclosure contained in the application, as it was initially filed before IMPI;
• The application is the result of a divisional application and includes claims that are not different from the parent application;
• As a result of the rectification of formal errors in the title of the patent or registration, or due to a limitation proceeding in which the proposed changes to the granted claims would extend the protection conferred by the patent, the subject matter protected by the patent has been broadened;
• Due to mistake or inadvertence, a right of priority has been recognised and the novelty or inventive step of the subject matter protected by the patent has thus been unduly determined;
• The patent was granted in contravention of the principle against double patenting; or
• The patent was granted to a person who did not have the right to obtain it (ie, not the inventor, designer, creator or assignee).

Answer ... In administrative declaration of nullity proceedings, all kinds of evidence will be admitted, except for testimonial and confessional evidence, unless this is contained in a documentary evidence.

Otherwise, any evidence will be accepted if it shows, for example, that:

• the patented invention should not have been considered as an ‘invention’;
• the invention is not patentable or lacks novelty, inventive step or industrial application, in terms of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property;
• the application does not disclose the invention in a sufficiently clear and complete manner;
• the claims exceed the disclosure contained in the application;
• due to a rectification or limitation procedure, the subject matter protected by the patent has been extended; or
• due to mistake or inadvertence, a claimed priority has been recognised and the novelty or inventive step of the protected subject matter through the patent has thus been unduly determined.

Answer ... The Mexican patent legislation does not provide for opposition. However, it does provide for a procedure through which IMPI may receive information from third parties on whether an application complies with the patentability requirements for potential grant, giving IMPI the discretion to decide whether to rule on the third party’s request (Article 109 of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property).

Answer ... The Mexican patent legislation does not provide for opposition. However, any party may submit information on whether an application complies with the patentability requirements (Article 109 of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property).

Answer ... IMPI may receive information from third parties on whether an application complies with the patentability requirements for potential grant within two months of publication of the patent application. IMPI may consider this information as technical support documentation in the substantive examination process, although it is not obliged to decide on the scope of the informant’s request and the latter will not have the status of an interested party.

Accordingly, IMPI will provide the applicant with the information and documents filed by the third party, so that the applicant can file arguments against this information where this is considered necessary (Article 109 of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property).

Answer ... The Mexican patent legislation does not provide for opposition.

Answer ... The Mexican patent legislation does not provide for opposition.

Answer ... The Mexican patent legislation does not provide for opposition, and the mechanism described in question 4.5 to 4.7 cannot be considered an opposition process, since the law is clear in not granting the status of interested party to anyone that submits information in a given patent application process, as well as in giving discretion to decide whether to rule on the third party’s request (Article 109 of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property).

Answer ... The Mexican patent legislation does not provide for opposition; and where information is submitted on whether an application complies with the patentability requirements, IMPI is not obliged to rule on its scope, so there may be no act or resolution issued by IMPI to appeal.

By contrast, a declaration of nullity may be appealed:

• within 15 working days before IMPI by any party that does not agree with the resolution on the administrative declaration of nullity; or
• within 30 working days before the Intellectual Property Chamber by filing the respective annulment action.