Skip to main content

Mexican Patent Litigation, International Intellectual Property Treaties and the Extension of Patent Term of Protection

Abstract

This article analyzes how the provisions on patent term adjustments contained in the new United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) will be problematic for Mexico. To illustrate this point, the article revisits a patent litigation in Mexico. The plaintiff was a Japanese company who was suing over the infringement of its rights by a Mexican Lab. In this case, Transitional Article Twelve of the Mexican Industrial Property Act was applied to recognize a priority filing date seven years later than its original filing in Japan. The litigation involved several issues such as the extension of the term of protection and the alleged infringement by the defendant after the authorities had extended the term of the patent. There are several principles and concerns discussed, including the principle of patent independence, national treatment, and minimum term of protection, all of which are contained in the Paris Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm (September 28, 1979).

  2. 2.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakech (April 15, 1994).

  3. 3.

    Extended practice in several legal systems. Lemley and Moore (2004), p. 94; Shinall (2012), p. 374.

  4. 4.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm (September 28, 1979).

  5. 5.

    Patent Cooperation Treaty, Washington (June 19, 1970).

  6. 6.

    Farrand (2006), p. 1266.

  7. 7.

    Mexican Industrial Property Act (June 27, 1991).

  8. 8.

    Solovy and Krishnamurthy (2017), p. 96. To illustrate this point, an application to protect the same invention called Thiazolidine Derivatives, was discarded for lack of novelty on April 6, 2001, by the National Institute of Industrial Property INAPI of Chile on April 6, 2001. Available at: https://ion.inapi.cl/Patente/ConsultaAvanzadaPatentes.aspx. Accessed January 6, 2019.

  9. 9.

    Tobias et al. (2009), p. 115; Pil (2014), p. 358.

  10. 10.

    Mexican Inventions and Trademarks Act (February 10, 1976), Arts. 10 and 65 (no longer in force).

  11. 11.

    Lapenne (2010), p. 198.

  12. 12.

    Mexican Industrial Property Act (June 27, 1991), Transitional Article 12.

  13. 13.

    El Economista, September 12, 2010.

  14. 14.

    El Economista, September 12, 2010.

  15. 15.

    Mexican Senate, April 26, 2007.

  16. 16.

    Goldstein (2008), p. 351.

  17. 17.

    Mueller (2009), p. 525.

  18. 18.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm (September 28, 1979), Art. 2.

  19. 19.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm (September 28, 1979), Art. 4.

  20. 20.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm (September 28, 1979), Art. 4(B).

  21. 21.

    Patent Cooperation Treaty, Washington (June 19, 1970), Arts. 3, 10.

  22. 22.

    Patent Cooperation Treaty, Washington (June 19, 1970), Art. 15.

  23. 23.

    Patent Cooperation Treaty, Washington (June 19, 1970), Art. 21.

  24. 24.

    Patent Cooperation Treaty, Washington (June 19, 1970), Art. 22.

  25. 25.

    Khoury (2012), p. 209.

  26. 26.

    Ilardi and Blakeney (2004), p. 40.

  27. 27.

    Abbott et al. (2007), p. 219.

  28. 28.

    Pires (2005), p. 71.

  29. 29.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm (September 28, 1979), Art. 2(1).

  30. 30.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Marrakech (April 15, 1994), Art. 27(1).

  31. 31.

    Mueller (2009), p. 544.

  32. 32.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakech (April 15, 1994), Arts. 31, 28 and 33. Markham (2011), p. 124.

  33. 33.

    Andrews (2011), p. 226.

  34. 34.

    Case No. 14113/05-17-05-9, 2006, p. 4.

  35. 35.

    Case No. 14113/05-17-05-9, 2006, p. 6.

  36. 36.

    Unless it is a provisional application, such as those existing in several legal systems, so that the original application date does not affect the term of protection. Migliorini (2007), p. 439.

  37. 37.

    Case No. 14113/05-17-05-9, 2006, p. 8.

  38. 38.

    Case No. 14113/05-17-05-9, 2006, p. 15.

  39. 39.

    Case No. 14113/05-17-05-9, 2006, p. 27.

  40. 40.

    Case No. 14113/05-17-05-9, 2006, p. 29.

  41. 41.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm (September 28, 1979), Art. 4bis.

  42. 42.

    Pires (2005), p. 74; Goldstein (2008), p. 353.

  43. 43.

    See Mahne (2012), p. 170; Oddi (1987), p. 860; Abbott et al. (2007), p. 173.

  44. 44.

    This question has also been recognized, or rather taken for granted, in American case law, see Voda v. Cordis 476 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 2007), pp. 898–899.

  45. 45.

    Correa (2007), p. 44.

  46. 46.

    Ersling and Strove (2015), p. 513.

  47. 47.

    Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. P. LXXVII/99, Federal Judiciary Gazette, Ninth Time, volume X, November 1999, p. 46.

  48. 48.

    Second Chamber, Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. IV.2o.A.76 K (10a.), Federal Judiciary Gazette, Tenth Time, book 12, November 2014, volume IV, p. 2918.

  49. 49.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakech (April 15, 1994), Arts. 41–60.

  50. 50.

    Takeda v. Rimsa (IMPI 2013), p. 3.

  51. 51.

    Takeda v. Rimsa (2013), p. 45.

  52. 52.

    Takeda v. Rimsa (2013), p. 53.

  53. 53.

    Takeda v. Rimsa (2013), p. 107.

  54. 54.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakech (April 15, 1994), Art. 41(3), establishes that decisions declaring infringement must be “reasoned.”

  55. 55.

    McJohn (2003), p. 173.

  56. 56.

    Takeda v. Rimsa (IMPI 2013), p. 109.

  57. 57.

    Approx. 80,000 US dollars at an exchange rate of 20 Mexican pesos per dollar.

  58. 58.

    Takeda v. Rimsa (IMPI 2013), p. 113.

  59. 59.

    Approx. 1.2 million US dollars at an exchange rate of 20 Mexican pesos per dollar.

  60. 60.

    Amparo 245/2014 (2014), p. 28.

  61. 61.

    Amparo 245/2014 (2014), p. 33.

  62. 62.

    Amparo 245/2014 (2014), p. 34.

  63. 63.

    Amparo 245/2014 (2014), p. 34.

  64. 64.

    Amparo 245/2014 (2014), p. 36.

  65. 65.

    Amparo 245/2014 (2014), p. 42.

  66. 66.

    In this specific case, the doctrine usually called this procedure Amparo Cassation, because of its similarity to the cassation appeal of French origin. Fix-Zamudio and Valencia (2009), p. 924.

  67. 67.

    Rabasa (1955), pp. 75 and 103.

  68. 68.

    Burgoa (2009), p. 145.

  69. 69.

    Amparo 245/2014 (2014), p. 76.

  70. 70.

    Inconformidad 608/2015 (2015), p. 13.

  71. 71.

    Hughes (2017), p. 493.

  72. 72.

    USMCA, Art. 20.44(3).

  73. 73.

    USMCA, Art. 20.46(2).

  74. 74.

    Kilic (2014), p. 44.

  75. 75.

    Weatherall (2016), p. 261.

  76. 76.

    Weatherall (2016), p. 260.

  77. 77.

    Walker (2001), p. 203.

  78. 78.

    35 U.S.C. §§ 154–156.

  79. 79.

    Moberg (2014), p. 238.

  80. 80.

    Cardenas-Navia (2014), p. 1304.

  81. 81.

    Cardenas-Navia (2014), p. 1312. See also 35 U.S.C. § 156.

  82. 82.

    Iyengar (2015), p. 668; Hemphill and Lemley (2011), p. 951

  83. 83.

    Shepherd (2016), p. 23.

  84. 84.

    Lindner and Morante (2018), p. 338.

  85. 85.

    Weatherall (2016), p. 265.

  86. 86.

    Kilic (2014), p. 31; Sell (2011), pp. 469–470.

  87. 87.

    Gathil and Ho (2017), p. 429.

  88. 88.

    Gathil and Ho (2017), p. 430.

  89. 89.

    ICSID, Ely Lilly v. Canada, Case No. UNCT/14/2 , March 16, 2017. Available at: http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C3544/DC10133_En.pdf.

  90. 90.

    Vadi (2015), p. 25.

  91. 91.

    Samples (2019), p. 140.

  92. 92.

    Vadi (2015), p. 61.

  93. 93.

    Gervais (2019), pp. 290–291.

  94. 94.

    Gervais (2019), p. 294.

  95. 95.

    Mexican Constitution, Art. 28, p. 10.

References

  1. Abbott F et al (2007) International intellectual property in an integrated world economy. Aspen Publishers, Nueva York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews D (2011) Why patentees litigate. Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev 12:219–254

    Google Scholar 

  3. Burgoa I (2009) El Juicio de Amparo, 43rd edn. Porrúa, México

    Google Scholar 

  4. Correa C (2007) Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cardenas-Navia J (2014) Thirty years of flawed incentives: an empirical and economic analysis of Hatch-Waxman patent-term restoration. Berkeley Technol Law J 29:1301–1382

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ersling JA, Strove FW (2015) A framework for patent exhaustion from foreign sales. Fordham Intellect Prop Media Entertain Law J 25:499–535

    Google Scholar 

  7. Farrand JR (2006) Territoriality and incentives under the patent laws. Berkeley Technol Law J 21:1215–1291

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fix-Zamudio H, Valencia S (2009) Derecho Constitucional Mexicano y Comparado, 6th edn. Porrúa, México

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gathil J, Ho C (2017) Regime shifting of IP lawmaking and enforcement from the WTO to the international investment regime. J Law Sci Technol 18:427–463

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gervais D (2019) Intellectual property: a beacon for reform of investor-state dispute settlement. Mich J Int Law 40:289–325

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goldstein P (2008) International intellectual property law, 2nd edn. Foundation Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hemphill CS, Lemley M (2011) Earning exclusivity: generic drug incentives and the Hatch–Waxman Act. Antitrust Law J 77:947–989

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hughes K (2017) Trans(parency) pacific partnership: the downfall of the TPP? Colo Technol Law J 15:487–510

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ilardi A, Blakeney M (2004) International encyclopedia of intellectual property treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  15. Iyengar V (2015) Should pharmaceutical product hopping be subject to antitrust scrutiny? J Pat Trademark Off Soc 97:663–690

    Google Scholar 

  16. Khoury A (2012) The end of the National Patent Office. Intellect Prop Law Rev 52:197–240

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kilic B (2014) Defending the spirit of the Doha Declaration in Free Trade Agreements: transpacific partnership and access to affordable medicines. Loyola Univ Chic Int Law Rev 12:23

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lapenne J (2010) Patent Cooperation Treaty. J Pat Trademark Off Soc 92:192–207

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lemley MA, Moore KA (2004) Ending abuse of patent continuations. Boston Univ Law Rev 84:63–123

    Google Scholar 

  20. Linder LH, Morante SM (2018) El Uso Estrategico de las Patentes Secundarias y otros Instrumentos en el Sector Farmaceutico: la Experiencia Mexicana. In: Becerra RM, Martinez OR (eds) Industria Farmaceutica, Derecho a la Salud y Propiedad Intelectual: el Reto del Equilibrio. UNAM, Mexico City

    Google Scholar 

  21. McJohn SM (2003) Intellectual property. Aspen Publishers, Nueva York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mahne K (2012) A unitary patent and unified patent court for the European Union: an analysis of Europe’s long standing attempt to create a supranational patent system. J Pat Trademark Off Soc 94:162–191

    Google Scholar 

  23. Markham W (2011) Terminal illness: curing the patent term using empirical analysis of the patent globalization. N Y Univ Intellect Prop Entertain Law Ledger 2:121–130

    Google Scholar 

  24. Migliorini RA (2007) Twelve years later: provisional patent application filing revisited. J Pat Trademark Off Soc 89:437–455

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moberg K (2014) Private industry’s impact on U.S. trade law and international intellectual property law: a study of post-TRIPS U.S. bilateral agreements and the capture of the USTR. J Pat Trademark Off Soc 96:228–256

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mueller JM (2009) Patent law, 3rd edn. Aspen Publishers, Nueva York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Oddi S (1987) The international patent system and third world development: reality or myth? Duke Law J 1987:831–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pil S (2014) Harmonizing public and private international law: implications of the Apple v. Samsung IP litigation. J East Asia Int Law 7:351–378

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pires N (2005) The TRIPs regime of patent rights, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rabasa E (1955) El Artículo 14. Estudio Constitucional y El Juicio Constitucional. Orígenes, Teoría y Extensión, 2nd edn. Porrúa, México

    Google Scholar 

  31. Samples TR (2019) Winning and losing in investor-state dispute settlement. Am Bus Law J 56:115–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sell S (2011) TRIPs was never enough: vertical forum shifting, FTAS, ACTA, and TPP. J Intellect Prop Law 18:447–472

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shepherd J (2016) Disrupting the balance: the conflict between Hatch-Waxman and inter partes review. N Y Univ J Intellect Prop Entertain Law 6:14–45

    Google Scholar 

  34. Shinall M (2012) Priority and disclosure: challenges and protections to small investors in a first to file world. J Pat Trademark Off Soc 94:362–400

    Google Scholar 

  35. Solovy EM, Krishnamurthy PS (2017) TRIPs agreement flexibilities and their limitations. George Wash Int Law Rev 50:69–124

    Google Scholar 

  36. Tobias P et al (2009) WTO trade related aspects of intellectual property rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vadi VS (2015) Towards a new dialectics: pharmaceutical patents, public health and foreign direct investments. N Y Univ J Intellect Prop Entertain Law 5:5–83

    Google Scholar 

  38. Walker JM Jr (2001) Judicial tendencies in statutory construction: differing views on the role of the judge. N Y Univ Annu Surv Am Law 58:203–239

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weatherall K (2016) Intellectual property in the TPP: not the new TRIPs. Melb J Int Law 17:257–289

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Garza Barbosa.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garza Barbosa, R. Mexican Patent Litigation, International Intellectual Property Treaties and the Extension of Patent Term of Protection. IIC 51, 6–30 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00889-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patent Litigation
  • PCT
  • National Treatment
  • Mexico
  • USMCA
  • NAFTA