Key Takeaway: While recent amendments to Mexico’s patent laws promote faster prosecution and earlier decisions on patents, concerns abound as to the feasibility and integrity of the prosecution process.
On April 3, 2026, Mexico published major amendments to the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (FLPIP), including changes to streamline and expedite patent prosecution. The recent reform requires that the Mexican PTO (IMPI) render a decision on an application no later than one year after the start of substantive examination.[1] However, if there is no final decision on patentability after the one-year mark, an applicant may request a mandatory resolution through a newly incorporated technical committee mechanism.[2] This new technical committee, to be established by IMPI’s Board of Directors, will determine when requests for mandatory resolution of pending applications should proceed.[3]
Additionally, due to the expedited prosecution timeframe, applicants will now be limited to only two substantive office actions—a reduction from the previous limit of four.[4] While the new prosecution timeline applies only to patent applications filed in Mexico on or after the reform’s effective date, all applicants can request mandatory resolution once the committee has been assembled, regardless of application filing date.[5]
Future Implications for Applicants and Biotech
A faster turnaround time may have significant implications for patent applicants, particularly in the biotech space. Faster prosecution can increase certainty in property rights. Instead of waiting years before examination starts and then waiting longer for each office action thereafter, an applicant will know within one year if they will secure a patent, which may prove critical for establishing early ownership rights, securing funding, negotiating licensing deals, and getting a product to market earlier.
However, this expedited process also imposes significant pressure on applicants to get prosecution right the first time. Decreased prosecution time and fewer office actions limit an applicant’s ability to amend and refine their application throughout prosecution. Fewer office actions may also encourage narrower claiming due to limited opportunities for argument and amendment, as well as fear of early rejection. This may be particularly challenging in novel and evolving areas, such as with antibodies and biologics, which require great technical detail and sufficient working examples while still desiring broad claims.
Additionally, expedited prosecution and fewer substantive office actions may decrease the thoroughness and quality of examination, potentially making it harder to overcome objections or making patents more susceptible to post-grant challenges.[6] Indeed, the expedited timelines, which have not been implemented yet, threaten to put significant and potentially unworkable pressure on the Mexican patent office.[7]
Finally, for inventions in the pharma and biotech space, there is another practical problem with expedited examination for applicants: at the time of filing applications a company may not have confirmation of a final clinical candidate (including compound, formulation, patient population, dosage, etc.). Thus, if prosecution of the patent application starts earlier, the ability for the company to file divisional applications in Mexico may become increasingly more important.
Editor: Brenden S. Gingrich, Ph.D.
[1] https://natlawreview.com/article/mexico-reduces-prosecution-timelines
[2] https://natlawreview.com/article/mexico-reduces-prosecution-timelines
[3] https://www.olivares.mx/knowledge-newsletters/new-technical-committee-mechanism
[4] https://natlawreview.com/article/mexico-reduces-prosecution-timelines
[5] https://natlawreview.com/article/mexico-reduces-prosecution-timelines
[6] https://natlawreview.com/article/mexico-reduces-prosecution-timelines
[7] https://natlawreview.com/article/mexico-reduces-prosecution-timelines
Subscribe for News and Updates
