The results consolidate H&A’s position as a benchmark in the IP sector, both in Europe and Latin America.

This recognition once again reflects our strength as an international firm.

Jurisdiction Rankings

In the IAM Patent 1000 2026 ranking, H&A’s advisory work in Patent Prosecution and Litigation in Spain has achieved a Silver classification. As for Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina, the classification has been Bronze.

Notable Professionals

The technical quality, the team’s experience, and their ability to provide cross-disciplinary and strategic advice to innovative companies across all sectors have also yielded significant achievements.

According to the directory, the standout professionals from our ranks have been:

• Marta Gimeno and José Luis López (Spain) have been recognised for their work as patent litigation experts, both for bringing an excellent strategic approach to the judicial defence of intangible assets.
• Jesús González and Manuel Pérez (Spain) have been included for their performance in patent prosecution, with particular recognition for their advisory work across a wide range of technical specialities and throughout the patent lifecycle.
• Karla Islas and Miguel Llanos (Mexico) have been highlighted for their ability to anticipate client needs, offering creative, business-oriented solutions and clear communication.
• Ariel Ibañez (Argentina) and Rafaela Mattos (Brazil) have also been distinguished for their track record in the field of industrial property in their respective countries.

A Boost to Our Global Vision

These recognitions from IAM Patent 1000 reinforce the strength of our international network and our commitment to excellence. They also serve as an incentive to continue advancing our mission: to provide high-quality legal and technical services, with an innovative, client-focused approach oriented towards the effective protection of inventions and companies’ intangible assets.

Last but not least, we would like to thank all our clients for their trust, and the entire H&A team for their daily dedication.

Check the full ranking here: H&A – Patent 1000 – IAM

La entrada H&A stands out again in the IAM Patent 1000 2026 ranking aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

The entry into operation of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in June 2023 introduced significant changes to the European patent system through the creation of a centralized jurisdiction coexisting with the traditional framework established under the European Patent Convention (EPC). This new system enables the centralization of patent litigation across multiple Member States through a single proceeding before the UPC, both for unitary patents and for European patents that have not been opted out of its jurisdiction.

For the Life Sciences sector, and biotechnology in particular, this development is especially significant. In this field, patent protection not only incentivizes innovation but also constitutes the core pillar of the business model. The combination of high development costs, scientific uncertainty, stringent regulatory requirements, lengthy timelines, and strong dependence on exclusivity makes patents particularly critical assets.

In this context, the UPC introduces a highly valuable strategic tool. However, its significance cannot be assessed solely in terms of procedural efficiency, as it also creates new risk dynamics requiring a reassessment of intellectual property strategies.

After nearly two years of operation, the UPC now allows for an initial assessment based on actual data and emerging judicial practice.

The UPC has demonstrated its effectiveness as a centralized system, while also introducing new risk dynamics that require a reconsideration of patent strategies in sectors such as biotechnology.

A system consolidated in record time

Since its launch, the UPC has recorded a steadily increasing level of activity. According to the UPC’s first Annual Report, published in February 2025, together with the statistics available on its official portal, the Court had already registered more than 600 proceedings since becoming operational, including infringement actions, revocation actions, and applications for provisional measures.

The Life Sciences sector occupies a prominent position in this context, with complex pharmaceutical and biotechnology disputes. In addition, a strong concentration of cases remains in certain divisions, particularly in Germany, reflecting the continuity of historical litigation patterns in Europe.

These figures support the conclusion that the UPC has rapidly established itself as a relevant and fully operational forum for patent litigation.

Patent protection with effect across multiple European States: A clear and confirmed advantage

One of the UPC’s primary objectives was to overcome the fragmentation inherent in the traditional European patent system, under which patents are granted centrally through the European Patent Office while enforcement largely depends on parallel national litigation. Early practice confirms that this objective is being effectively achieved.

The possibility of obtaining measures with effect across multiple jurisdictions has been actively used, particularly in proceedings involving provisional measures. Several early decisions of the Court demonstrate a willingness to grant injunctions with broad territorial scope, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of the system for patent proprietors.

In the pharmaceutical sector, where protection against the market entry of generics or biosimilars is critical, this capacity for rapid and coordinated enforcement represents a significant practical benefit.

This approach is consistent with the objectives identified in the European Commission’s Impact Assessment on the Unitary Patent Package (European Commission, SWD (2011) 482 final, section 2.3), which emphasized the need to reduce fragmentation and improve the overall efficiency of the system.

In addition, recent sector-specific analyses have identified a further strategic dimension: the possibility of obtaining pan-European decisions strengthens the patent proprietor’s bargaining position by increasing the potential impact of infringement actions and, consequently, its leverage in licensing negotiations and settlement discussions (European Biotechnology Magazine, “Is the Unified Patent Court affordable for small biotechs?”, 2026).

The UPC has therefore fulfilled its role as a centralized enforcement mechanism, particularly valuable in high-impact commercial disputes.

Centralization of protection and concentration of risk

However, the UPC’s most transformative feature lies not only in the centralization of protection, but also in the concentration of risk.

Article 65 of the UPC Agreement provides that a revocation decision may produce effects across all participating Member States. This mechanism represents a qualitative shift from the traditional model, under which patent validity was litigated on a country-by-country basis.

As noted by Tilmann (The Unified Patent Court System, Oxford University Press, 2020, chapter 8), the nature of patent risk evolves from a distributed model to a significantly more concentrated one.

In sectors such as biotechnology, where corporate value frequently depends on a limited number of key patents, this feature is particularly significant, as it substantially increases the potential impact of an adverse decision.

The UPC therefore enhances enforcement efficiency while simultaneously amplifying the consequences of adverse rulings, requiring a more rigorous and strategically oriented assessment of patent protection.

Persistent complexity: Coexistence of systems and rights

One of the most significant aspects revealed by practice during the UPC’s first years of operation is that the system does not eliminate the complexity of the European patent landscape; rather, it introduces new combinations of protection and litigation that must be managed in a coordinated manner.

Since not all EPC Contracting States participate in the UPC — including key jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Spain, and Switzerland — proprietors seeking broad territorial protection must combine different instruments, including the Unitary Patent, national validations of European patents, and, in some cases, additional national patents.

Furthermore, in certain UPC participating States, the issue of double protection between a Unitary Patent and a national patent has not yet been fully harmonized. This may allow, in some circumstances, the coexistence of overlapping rights covering the same invention within the same territory. As a consequence, parallel rights capable of independent enforcement may arise, potentially generating scenarios of parallel litigation.

This practical complexity has been highlighted in recent sector analyses, which note that the current interaction between Unitary Patents, national validations, and parallel jurisdictional frameworks may continue to produce fragmented protection scenarios despite the existence of the UPC (European Biotechnology Magazine, 2026).

This situation demonstrates that, notwithstanding the progress introduced by the UPC, patent protection in Europe still requires carefully structured strategic planning.

Multiplicity of proceedings: The Amgen/Sanofi example

Recent practice confirms that the UPC does not necessarily replace existing proceedings but rather coexists with them within an increasingly complex litigation landscape.

The litigation between Amgen and Sanofi concerning pharmaceutical patents relating to PCSK9 inhibitors for cholesterol reduction illustrates this situation particularly well, as related disputes have proceeded simultaneously before the UPC, the European Patent Office, and national courts.

Such cases demonstrate that, in certain disputes, the UPC does not reduce procedural multiplicity, but instead adds further layers of strategic complexity.

Moreover, in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, innovation protection does not depend exclusively on patents. Regulatory mechanisms — including data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) — operate alongside patent protection and remain strategically significant.

Although the UPC does not directly modify these regulatory instruments, it does influence the way they are incorporated into broader enforcement and commercialization strategies. In disputes involving the market entry of generics or biosimilars, effective coordination between patent litigation and regulatory frameworks becomes particularly important.

In complex Life Sciences disputes, the UPC therefore operates not as a replacement for existing mechanisms, but as an additional layer within a broader multi-forum enforcement environment requiring increasingly sophisticated coordination.

Costs and access: Efficiency with uneven impact

The European Commission has stated that the new system aims to “make patent protection in Europe more accessible, less costly and more effective”, particularly for innovative companies operating across multiple markets (European Commission, Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court, 2023).

In sectors such as pharmaceuticals, where exclusivity periods are decisive, the possibility of obtaining injunctions or infringement judgments with pan-European effect may have a direct impact on competition and revenues.

However, efficiency does not necessarily translate into simplicity. The UPC introduces a new procedural framework, with specific rules, strict deadlines, and litigation dynamics requiring more complex strategic preparation.

The UPC may offer efficiency compared to parallel litigation across multiple countries. Nevertheless, absolute costs remain high, especially in sectors such as Life Sciences, where technical complexity requires a high degree of specialization.

The system also incorporates a cost recovery regime (Article 69 UPCA), under which the losing party may be required, within certain limits, to bear a substantial portion of the successful party’s costs. This mechanism increases the financial exposure associated with litigation and reinforces the need for prior strategic assessment.

An analysis by the European Parliament (The Unified Patent Court: Challenges and Opportunities, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, 2022, pp. 54–58) noted that, while the system may improve overall efficiency, its practical impact may vary depending on company size and may prove less accessible for certain stakeholders.

This distinction is particularly evident in the biotechnology sector. More recent sector analyses have emphasized that actual litigation costs and the risks associated with centralized revocation may lead smaller biotechnology companies to adopt the system more cautiously (European Biotechnology Magazine, 2026).

Beyond direct costs, these analyses further indicate that the UPC introduces a degree of strategic asymmetry among market participants by favouring companies with greater capacity to absorb significant procedural risks and manage complex pan-European litigation. For small and medium-sized biotechnology companies, this dynamic affects not only decisions regarding litigation, but also the way in which patent portfolios are structured and the assessment of whether such portfolios should fall within the UPC’s jurisdiction.

Unlike large pharmaceutical companies, which typically maintain broad and diversified patent portfolios, many biotech companies depend on a limited number of core patents. In this context, the risk of centralized revocation becomes more significant, litigation costs have a greater relative impact, and the capacity to manage complex disputes is more limited.

In practice, this difference translates into more intensive use of the UPC by companies with greater litigation resources, whereas smaller companies tend to adopt a more selective approach depending on the asset involved and the level of risk assumed.

Accordingly, while the UPC improves efficiency, its effective use may favour parties with greater financial and organizational resources.

Strategy in practice: selective use and hybrid approaches

The experience of the UPC’s first years demonstrates that companies are not adopting the system uniformly, but rather in a highly strategic manner.

A selective use of the system can be observed depending on the asset involved, with differentiated decisions being made within the same portfolio, combining the UPC and national jurisdictions, and using the opt-out mechanism as a strategic tool.

Many companies avoid automatically exposing their most valuable patents to the risk of centralized revocation.

In this context, recent analyses suggest that certain biotechnology companies are adopting a tactical use of the system, resorting to the UPC in specific actions, particularly offensive actions, while limiting the exposure of their most critical assets to the risk of centralized invalidity (European Biotechnology Magazine, 2026).

The UPC does not replace patent strategy; it makes it more important than ever.

Conclusion: A tool requiring strategic planning

The UPC has proven to be an effective and fully operational system capable of improving patent enforcement in Europe.

At the same time, it introduces structural changes affecting risk management, system complexity, and access to litigation.

As recent analyses have noted, the UPC’s impact is not limited to procedural aspects, but is beginning to influence the very incentives of the innovation system by altering how companies assess risk, structure their portfolios, and make litigation decisions (European Biotechnology Magazine, 2026).

The initial experience allows for one clear conclusion:

The UPC is an effective tool, but its impact is not even and depends largely on the profile of the patent proprietor and the strategy adopted.

In the Life Sciences sector, and particularly in biotechnology, this translates into the need for a selective and well-founded approach.

In this context, the management of intellectual property in Europe requires increasingly sophisticated analysis, in which the use of the UPC must be assessed alongside the other tools available within the EPC system.

At Herrero & Asociados, we advise companies in the Life Sciences sector on the development of protection and litigation strategies tailored to this evolving environment, combining technical expertise, regulatory knowledge, and continuous monitoring of UPC developments to identify the most appropriate solution in each case.

La entrada The Unified Patent Court (UPC) and biotechnology in Europe: An initial assessment and strategic perspectives aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

On May 13, 2026, the Argentine National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) published Resolution 142/2026, amending Resolution P-056/2016 and significantly broadening access to Argentina’s accelerated patent prosecution mechanism.

INPI’s new Resolution 142/2026 removes the timing restriction for accessing accelerated patent prosecution, enhancing procedural efficiency and aligning Argentina with international trends in patent examination cooperation.

The amendment introduces an important procedural change for patent applicants holding equivalent patents granted abroad: requests to benefit from the accelerated mechanism may now be filed at any stage of prosecution, provided that no final administrative decision granting or rejecting the application has yet been issued.

The previous framework

Resolution P-056/2016 established a simplified prosecution system under which the National Patent Administration could deem certain substantive patentability requirements satisfied when an equivalent patent had already been granted by a foreign patent office conducting substantive examination under standards comparable to those applied in Argentina.

However, the original framework imposed a significant timing restriction: the mechanism could only be requested if substantive examination had not yet commenced. In practice, this substantially limited its usefulness, as many applicants identified the strategic advantages of accelerated prosecution only after examination had already begun.

Changes introduced by Resolution 142/2026

The new resolution expressly repeals Section 4 of Resolution P-056/2016 and replaces Section 5, thereby eliminating the previous timing limitation.

The amended provision states that:

“The applicant may voluntarily request the application of this Resolution (…) at any stage of prosecution prior to the issuance of the administrative decision granting or rejecting the application.”

The resolution preserves the remaining substantive requirements of the system, including:

• The need to align the scope of the Argentine claims with the claims granted abroad
• Submission of the corresponding translation
• INPI’s authority to assess eligibility on a case-by-case basis

The National Patent Administration must issue its decision within 60 days from the filing of the request.

Practical impact and strategic considerations

The amendment clearly aims to simplify and expedite patent prosecution in Argentina, in line with international trends favouring the use of examination results issued by foreign patent offices.

From a practical standpoint, the reform provides applicants with greater flexibility, allowing them to evaluate the convenience of entering the accelerated regime even after substantive examination has begun or after office actions have been issued by Argentine examiners.

The new regulation may also help:

• reduce prosecution timelines
• optimize administrative resources
• lower costs associated with multiple examination rounds
• improve procedural predictability

The change is particularly relevant for multinational companies managing global patent portfolios that already benefit from favorable examination outcomes issued by major offices such as the USPTO, EPO, JPO, or CNIPA.

Nevertheless, the resolution does not create an automatic grant system. INPI retains authority to verify compliance with Argentine patentability requirements and to assess the effective correspondence between foreign-granted claims and those pursued locally.

Conclusion

Resolution 142/2026 represents a positive development in Argentina’s accelerated patent prosecution framework. By removing the timing restriction that had existed since 2016, INPI has introduced a more flexible procedural tool aligned with administrative efficiency and international patent examination cooperation practices.

The reform will likely increase the use of accelerated prosecution mechanisms by both local and foreign applicants and may contribute to reducing average patent grant timelines in Argentina.

La entrada Argentina expands access to accelerated patent prosecution aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

Moldova joins the European Patent Convention.

As from that date, protection conferred by European patents may be extended to this territory through the ordinary EPC system, and European patent applications will automatically include the designation of Moldova as a new contracting state. However, it will not be possible to designate the country retroactively in applications filed before that date.

The European Patent Office (EPO) will exceptionally allow applications filed in May 2026 to be accorded a filing date of June 1, 2026, provided that the applicant expressly requests it.

International PCT applications will be affected in several respects:

• Nationals and residents of Moldova will be able to file PCT applications with the EPO acting as Receiving Office.
• PCT applications filed from June 1, 2026, onwards will automatically designate Moldova for the purposes of a European patent.
• International applications filed before that date will not be capable of resulting in European patents valid in Moldova.

Regarding validations, June 1, 2026, will mark the end of the possibility of validating European patents in Moldova, although the validation system will continue to apply to European and international applications filed before the accession date, to divisional applications derived therefrom, and to patents granted on that basis.

La entrada Moldova joins the European Patent Convention aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

This system has evolved significantly, expanding both its scope and effectiveness. In particular, it has strengthened patent protection against third parties seeking to obtain marketing authorizations for products covered by valid patent rights. It is also aligned with international commitments such as the USMCA (United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement) and the domestic legal framework, namely the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (LFPPI). Among the most relevant developments are the following:

• The publication of the Gazette of Medicines —issued every six months—which not only discloses lists of patents in force for allopathic medicines, but more recently also includes biotechnological products, compositions, and uses, thereby providing a broader scope of protection and linkage for various types of inventions in the health sector that may be subject to marketing authorizations.

The issuance of the Agreement between the IMPI and the COFEPRIS, which establishes the following:

• Regulates the manner in which IMPI and COFEPRIS share technical information for the evaluation of marketing authorization applications, on a confidential basis.
• Provides information regarding allopathic and biotechnological medicines disclosed in the Gazette of Medicines, such as active ingredient, patent term, holder(s), etc.
• Establishes the type of technical assistance that COFEPRIS may request from IMPI and the conclusions that may be derived therefrom.
• Introduces the possibility for a patent holder to file an opposition against a marketing authorization application that may affect the scope of its patent rights, upon its publication in COFEPRIS listings of generic or biosimilar applications. Such opposition must be filed within a 10-day period from the date of publication, through the Third Party Opposition Form (FOT).

During 2026, and as part of the continued efforts to strengthen the IMPI–COFEPRIS linkage system, two additional developments have been introduced which further enhance transparency, accessibility, and the potential for compensation to patent holders who have applied for a marketing authorization:

1. The launch of the “IMPI–COFEPRIS Linkage System Portal”, which centralizes relevant information in a single platform, presented in an organized, intuitive, and user-friendly manner, including:

1. Granted marketing authorizations
2. Pending marketing authorization applications
3. Third-party oppositions
4. Patents in the public domain
5. Patents nearing expiration (within 3, 5, or 10 years)
6. Patents associated with medicaments
7. COFEPRIS responses
8. Gazette of Medicines
9. Regulatory framework
10. Various forms

2. An amendment to the LFPPI establishing the possibility of patent term adjustment in favor of the patent holder in cases of unreasonable delays attributable to COFEPRIS in the granting of a requested marketing authorization. However, this mechanism still requires further regulatory development within the health framework for its effective implementation.

In summary, the IMPI–COFEPRIS linkage mechanism provides a protective framework for patents in force covering allopathic and biotechnological medicines, formulations, and uses, in the context of marketing authorization applications not filed by the patent holder. This enhances legal certainty and security in the exploitation of such rights, ultimately benefiting public health in Mexico.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the IMPI–COFEPRIS linkage system still faces challenges, particularly in reducing processing times, strengthening institutional coordination, and achieving a proper balance between patent protection and access to generic and biosimilar medicines.

At H&A, we would be pleased to provide further information and tailored advice on this matter.

La entrada New opportunities and challenges in the IMPI–COFEPRIS Linkage System aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

This amendment substantially modifies the patent regime, trademark regime, and proceedings before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI).

In general terms, the amendments introduce measures designed to simplify and improve the operation of various procedures set forth in the law. At the same time, they strengthen legal protection for rights holders. Their purpose is to modernize the Mexican system to accelerate procedures, reduce timeframes, and enhance the protection of assets under the USMCA framework.

The most relevant changes and additions concerning distinctive signs and litigation proceedings are as follows:

• Expansion of the catalogue of registrable signs. Article 172 LFPPI.

A new category of trademarks is recognized, including, notably, position marks, motion marks, and multimedia marks. This seeks to provide a clearer framework for the combination of signs.

• Addition of a new ground for refusal of trademark registration. Article 173 LFPPI.

It is established that signs that are identical or confusingly similar to elements forming part of the cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, or cultural expressions of Indigenous peoples and Afro-Mexican communities shall not be registrable.

• Timeframes for IMPI actions (multiple provisions).

Maximum timeframes are introduced for the IMPI to act at different stages of proceedings related to distinctive signs, including the resolution of applications, publications, and associated administrative proceedings.

• Suspension of proceedings. Article 228 LFPPI.

Provisions are introduced for the suspension of trademark application proceedings when there are nullity, cancellation, or lapse actions related to relevant signs, as well as in cases where the resolution of an application depends on the outcome of other proceedings.

• Infringement proceedings through digital platforms. Article 328 LFPPI.

The possibility of filing and prosecuting administrative infringement proceedings before IMPI through digital platforms is established, consolidating the digitalization of procedures.

• Ambush Marketing. Article 386 LFPPI.

“Ambush marketing” is incorporated as a ground for administrative infringement, recognizing that such practice is considered an improper exploitation of the reputation, prestige, commercial value of events, trademarks, or distinctive signs without authorization from their owners.

Important: Matters that are pending resolution at the time this Reform Decree enters into force shall be concluded in accordance with the provisions in force at the time they were initiated.

Overview of the Reform of the Federal Law on Intellectual Property

The recent reform of the Federal Law on the Protection of introduces significant changes to the system governing distinctive signs in Mexico, aimed at updating and strengthening it. The expansion of the catalog of registrable signs responds to the need to recognize new forms of commercial identification, while the inclusion of restrictions related to the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples and communities and Afro-Mexicans reinforces the protection of elements with collective value.

Likewise, the incorporation of deadlines for MTO’s actions, the regulation of the suspension of proceedings, and the authorization of electronic means for processing infringements contribute to providing greater certainty, efficiency, and modernization to the system. For its part, the classification of ambush marketing as an administrative offense addresses contemporary commercial practices that required an explicit regulatory response.

Taken together, these amendments represent a significant step forward in the evolution of the Mexican trademark system; therefore, it is recommended that rights holders, applicants, and users of the system review their protection and compliance strategies in light of this new legal framework.

At H&A, we provide you with a team of intellectual property specialists who combine experience, strategic vision, and in-depth knowledge of the new legal framework. We understand that your brand is one of your most valuable assets, which is why we design tailored solutions to protect it and enhance its value.

Considering recent changes in legislation, we offer comprehensive support: we analyze the impact on your rights, identify risks and opportunities, and implement solid strategies that allow you to stay one step ahead.

La entrada Reform of the Mexican Federal Law (LFPPI): What’s changing for trademarks in Mexico aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

This amendment substantially modifies the patent regime, trademark regime, and proceedings before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI).

The magnitude of this amendment is historic and is aimed at modernizing the system, aligning it with best international practices and addressing the challenges posed by digitalization and artificial intelligence to the protection of industrial property rights.

The significant changes to the Mexican intellectual property system and their most relevant aspects are as follows:

Provisional patent application

The inventor or their assignee may file a provisional patent application in Mexico, so that the date and time at which the provisional patent application was received in Mexico is recognized as the filing date of a patent application, bearing a significant similarity to the standard U.S. provisional application system.

This legal figure is particularly useful for startups, universities, and domestic inventors with limited resources. Among its key benefits, the following are highlighted:

• Preserves the filing date while the complete application is being prepared.
• The filing date and time are formally recognized.
• Only requires the inventor’s name and a description identifying the invention.
• A non-extendable twelve (12)-month term to file the formal application.
• It is neither published nor examined.
• It does not generate a right of priority with respect to another application (it operates exclusively within Mexico’s domestic system).
• If the term lapses without a formal application being filed, the provisional application shall be deemed abandoned ex officio.

Patent entitlement proceedings

Where a patent has been granted to a party lacking the right to obtain it, or has been improperly awarded to a person other than the legitimate titleholder, the latter may assert an ownership claim at any time by filing a petition for an administrative declaration before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI), provided that the patent remains in force at the time of the claim.

Should the claim be declared admissible, the Institute shall order the reissuance of the patent title in favor of the claimant, as well as its publication in the Industrial Property Gazette, so that the change of ownership shall produce full legal effects against third parties.

Maximum timeframes for substantive examination decisions

• Maximum term of one (1) year to issue decisions on patents, utility models, and industrial designs from the commencement of substantive examination.
• For layout designs of integrated circuits, a maximum of two (2) months from filing or from the date the last office action requirement is satisfied.

Restoration of rights and reinstatement of priority

Mechanisms are introduced to prevent the automatic forfeiture of rights due to formal non-compliance, thereby reducing the loss of valuable patents caused by administrative oversights, miscalculation of deadlines, or changes of legal representative, particularly in PCT application proceedings.

Prior to the authority declaring abandonment, the applicant of a patent, utility model, or industrial design may file a petition for restoration of rights within fifteen (15) business days following the expiration of the unmet deadline.

Likewise, for the reinstatement of a priority right, an applicant who has failed to satisfy all statutory requirements to claim their priority right for a patent, utility model, or industrial design may request its reinstatement within two (2) months following the expiration of the applicable deadline.

Establishment of the specialized technical committee

A Specialized Technical Committee is established within the governance structure of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI), with the purpose of reviewing and resolving petitions for the issuance of mandatory decisions in pending patent or registration matters.

Said Committee shall be composed of a minimum of three (3) representatives appointed by the Institute’s Board of Directors and shall have as its primary function the administration of the mandatory decision procedure in cases where unjustified delay in the processing of pending matters is identified.

Issuance of mandatory decisions

The amendment introduces a mandatory decision mechanism enabling interested parties to compel IMPI to issue a final determination when the statutory deadlines established for the prosecution of patents or registrations have been unjustifiably exceeded. Oversight of this mechanism is vested in the newly created Specialized Technical Committee, integrated within the Institute’s own governance structure.

The Specialized Technical Committee is tasked with reviewing, addressing, and determining the admissibility of petitions related to mandatory decision proceedings in patent and registration matters. Its intervention provides the system with an additional layer of institutional oversight aimed at ensuring the timely resolution of proceedings before IMPI.

The holder of an application may petition the Committee to initiate the corresponding procedure when the Institute has failed to issue a decision within the statutory timeframes. Once the mechanism is activated, the Committee shall require the public official responsible for the proceeding to submit the corresponding report, on the basis of which it shall assess the situation and issue the final determination warranted under applicable law.

Expansion of the scope of Third-Party Observations (Oppositions)

The scope of the third-party observation’s mechanism is broadened, permitting any person, without the need to demonstrate legal standing, to submit before IMPI technically or documentarily relevant information for the analysis of patentability or registrability not only with respect to invention patents, but also utility models and industrial designs.

This expansion reinforces the principle of enhanced substantive examination and contributes to raising the quality and robustness of the rights granted by the Institute.

Supplementary certificate for unreasonable delay in obtaining marketing authorization

A new potential compensation mechanism for patent term extension is established in connection with unreasonable delays in obtaining marketing authorization from the sanitary authority (COFEPRIS). To that end, said sanitary authority must formally recognize and determine such delay in order to request IMPI to issue a supplementary certificate adjusting the term of the patent in question, not to exceed five (5) years, closely analogous to the existing mechanism for obtaining a term extension certificate arising from delays in patent prosecution attributable to IMPI.

This provision is intended to afford patent holders in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological sectors a scope of protection that compensates for the waiting period involved in obtaining marketing authorization, which in many cases takes several years, thereby enabling the titleholder to commercially exploit the invention for a reasonable additional period, recover their investment, and foster the development of new active pharmaceutical ingredients, compositions, biotechnological innovations, and medical uses in the healthcare sector thus providing greater legal certainty and security to patent holders engaged in marketing authorization proceedings.

However, it remains pending for the sanitary authority to incorporate this compensatory mechanism within its own regulatory legal framework before its practical implementation becomes feasible. Further clarification is also needed as to whether this mechanism applies to all categories of patents beyond those protecting allopathic biotechnological pharmaceuticals and medical uses, the specific grounds to which delays may be attributed (i.e., in administrative, technical, or other terms), and the timeframes to be considered in determining what falls within or outside a reasonable period for regulatory proceedings.

Overview of the LFPPI comprehensive reform

The comprehensive amendment to the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property represents a watershed moment in the Mexican industrial property system and, with it, a strategic opportunity to review, strengthen, and optimize the management of your intangible assets. Given the magnitude and complexity of the changes introduced, obtaining specialized legal counsel is not merely advisable it is indispensable to ensure the full validity and enforceability of your rights.

At H&A, we have a multidisciplinary team of attorneys and specialized agents, with extensive experience in the strategic management of trademark and patent portfolios, as well as in the principal international treaties governing the field. We are prepared to accompany you at every stage this reform demands, from the analysis of its impact on your existing rights to the design and implementation of the strategy best suited to your needs and interests.

La entrada Comprehensive Reform of the Mexican Federal Law (LFPPI): What Every Company and Inventor must Know for Mexican Patent Practice aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

In Brazilian intellectual property, the concept of prior user refers to an important form of protection designed to guarantee the rights of those who use a given trademark or invention prior to its formal registration or filing. This institution seeks to balance the rights of creators and innovators with those who have been continuously and publicly using a given sign, trademark, or technology in good faith. The prior user figure is fundamental to market dynamics, as it ensures that pioneers in the use of a given asset or sign are not harmed by a subsequent registration by third parties.

The right of the prior user as defined by the Brazilian IP Law protects those who use a trademark or invention in good faith before formal registration, guaranteeing the continuity of exploitation in the original form and balancing the rights of pioneers and new applicants.

Prior user, priority right

Thus, according to the Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/96), a prior user is defined as someone who, prior to the formal registration of a trademark or filing of a patent, was already continuously and publicly using the sign or invention. A prior user has a priority right to use the trademark or invention (whether a process or product), even without formally registering its ownership.

In the field of patents, according to article 45 of Law 9279/96, a prior user in good faith is one who, before the filing date or priority date of the patent application, was already using the invention. A person who used a technology before its patent application may continue to do so as long as the form and conditions of such exploitation are not changed. By defining that exploitation must occur in the “previous condition”, the intention is to establish that the level of the product or process previously made is not expanded or changed. In this sense, a previous user could not, for example, expand the territory of exploitation.

Brazilian IP law statement

Article 45 of Brazilian IP Law 9,279/96 states that “any person acting in good faith who, prior to the filing date or priority date of a patent application, was exploiting its subject matter in the country, shall be guaranteed the right to continue exploiting it, free of charge, in the previous form and condition.”

1. The right granted under this article may only be transferred together with the business or company, or part thereof, that is directly related to the exploitation of the subject matter of the patent, by sale or lease.
2. The right referred to in this article shall not be guaranteed to a person who has become aware of the subject matter of the patent through disclosure in accordance with Article 12, provided that the application has been filed within 1 (one) year, counted from the disclosure.

The law guarantees that the privilege is unenforceable against a previous user, provided that he or she is acting in good faith. The law requires the requirement of good faith, which will most often be configured as the fact of being an independent inventor or a legitimate successor to the former. Good faith is a subjective requirement, that is, it is translated into the lack of awareness of the illicit act, and not of the fact of the illicit act itself.

Brazilian IP law requirements

In this sense, the user’s right is applicable if two basic requirements are met:

1. First, it is necessary that the user holds, in good faith, the technology used by the applicant of the application. Therefore, the rule does not grant protection to those who become aware of it through the inventor himself, or through third parties, based on information obtained from the inventions or in light of his acts, or through the Brazilian PTO, through the publication of the patent application filed without the consent of the inventor, all provided that the application has been filed up to one year after the disclosure (article 45, § 2, and article 12, of Law 9.279/96).
2. Secondly, for the occurrence of the legal provision to be configured, it is necessary that the invention be exploited by the user in Brazil, thus ensuring the right to continue the enterprise, without burden, in the form and condition in which it was already being developed.

One of the challenges for previous users in good faith would be proving good faith, since this is subjective, that is, it translates into the lack of awareness of the wrongdoing, and not the fact of the wrongdoing itself. There is no determination of specific documentation required/accepted by law. This challenge can be mitigated through any adequate documentation and clear evidence of use or preparation of the technology.

Good faith is presented as a requirement of loyalty, an objective model of conduct, a social archetype by which each person’s power and duty to adjust their own conduct to this archetype is imposed. These points highlight the need to understand the previous user in good faith as a fair exception to the rule of negative rights granted by patents.

The establishment of rules regarding the previous user in good faith is a matter of discretion for countries and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, requiring that compliance with the rule in laws and contracts is not in the abstract, but in the concrete.

As to the subject matter of the right, the beneficiary of the right is the person who already holds the same invention, or an invention within the scope of the patent claims of a third party, including in the event of equivalence of factors.

It should be noted that there is only a right of unenforceability in relation to an invention that has already been exploited (and not simply researched or known), prior to the filing of the patent, and in the country. Exploitation abroad does not grant unenforceability.

It is worth considering the nature of the technology held by the previous user when verifying what constitutes “use”. It cannot be used in a way that constitutes prior art (loss of novelty). In other words, it will not be susceptible to being revealed by prior exploitation, being opaque to the public eye. If such exploitation (which, let us remember, is mandatory to guarantee the right under analysis) deciphers the technology, there will have been loss of novelty, and the patent would be null and void.

Personal & non-transferable right

The purpose of the provision is to emphasize that the right to apply for a patent is an option of the inventor, and not an obligation. An inventor who prefers to keep his creation a secret, without constituting prior art, is allowed to continue exploiting it, even without the exclusivity of the patent holder. The right to secrecy is formally guaranteed, which is parallel to the right under copyright law, as it is the right not to make one’s creation public.

The right is personal and non-transferable; it may only be transferred together with the business or company, or part thereof, that has a direct relationship with the exploitation of the object of the patent through alienation or lease.

An invention that has already been exploited, prior to the filing of the patent, and in the country, are actions that constitute use.

The legal provision refers to the right of the previous user to continue to exploit his technology in the “previous form and conditions”. There is not necessarily a quantitative or qualitative limit to the exploitation, but only a restriction in relation to the patent. What he cannot do, as the owner, is to dispossess by extension the patent of the holder who obtained it. The previous user may improve his invention and use it as long as he does not violate the privilege of the other.

The exploitation referral by law means in the domestic market. Therefore, there is no possibility of extending rights to the same act carried out abroad, even if proven to be in good faith.

If the importing company has been active in Brazil since before the filing/priority date of the patent application, said company is granted its own right of prior use. In this case, the “prior use” would encompass the import business itself.

It is important to mention that this right cannot be assigned, that is, it is personal and, therefore, restrictively transferable (Article 45 §1 mentioned above), in addition to not being applicable in the case of knowledge of the invention occurring through one of the forms of disclosure of Article 12 of the Brazilian IP Law.

Article 12. The disclosure of an invention or utility model shall not be considered as prior art when it occurs during the 12 (twelve) months preceding the filing date or priority date of the patent application, if promoted:

I – by the inventor;

II – by the National Institute of Industrial Property – INPI, through official publication of the patent application filed without the consent of the inventor, based on information obtained from him or as a result of acts performed by him; or

III – by third parties, based on information obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or as a result of acts performed by him.

Sole paragraph. The PTO may require the inventor to make a statement regarding the disclosure, accompanied or not by evidence, under the conditions established by regulation.

The prior user may only sell or lease his rights together with his business, or the part thereof that is related to the use of the invention. Thus, the user may not license his rights to a third party to exploit the patented product or process on the third party’s own premises.

Therefore, if the prior user sells or leases the production plant related to the use of the invention to another company, the right of prior use is transferred as well.

In this case, the buyer or lessee of the production plant is subject to the same limitations as the original prior user, that is, the continued use of the invention must be kept within the same forms and conditions as that of the original prior user.

Exclusive Brazilian rights

It should be noted that prior use rights obtained/recognized in other countries cannot be transferred to Brazilian companies as said rights are only obtainable in Brazil if the prior use has started in national territory.

In addition to the above teachings, the right of prior use is considered an exception rather than the rule in Brazilian legislation. As such, the norms regarding this right should always be interpreted restrictively to avoid patent infringements.

The right of prior use is also considered a “passive right”. That means it is meant only to protect the prior user from litigation promoted by the patent owner.

Therefore, the right of prior use does not allow its holder to enforce any kind of exclusivity rights against competitors. The only active use of this right would be to request the nullity of the related patent or to prevent it from being granted by the Brazilian IP Office, if it’s still a pending application.

La entrada Innovation and legal security: understanding the previous user figure in Brazil aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

Among the topics addressed, particular emphasis was placed on ongoing efforts to improve trademark examination, including the standardization of decisions and the optimization of internal workflows. These initiatives aim to enhance consistency in examination practices and provide greater legal certainty for system users.

The BPTO also highlighted the continuation and refinement of priority examination mechanisms, allowing for faster processing of applications in specific circumstances. This measure aligns with broader efforts to increase operational efficiency and reduce turnaround times in strategic cases.

The 2026 strategy underscores a continued institutional commitment to reducing examination backlog, standardizing administrative decisions, and advancing the normative framework governing trademarks and industrial designs.

From a regulatory standpoint, the importance of the continuous update of the Trademark Guidelines (Manual of Trademarks) was underscored. This instrument plays a key role in ensuring transparency in examination criteria and alignment with international practices.

One of the key topics addressed was the enhancement of the regime for the recognition of highly renowned trademarks. The BPTO highlighted relevant developments, including the possibility of indicating more than one base registration in a single request, as well as ongoing regulatory adjustments under the applicable Ordinance and the Trademark Guidelines. It was further emphasized that both the granting and maintenance of such status remain subject to the submission of robust, consistent and up-to-date evidence capable of demonstrating widespread recognition of the mark among the general public. In practical terms, these measures are expected to provide greater flexibility for owners with broader trademark portfolios, without lowering the high evidentiary threshold required.

In addition, the Office is advancing in the implementation of technological solutions to support examination activities, including tools aimed at improving prior art searches and increasing the efficiency of internal procedures, as part of a broader digital transformation strategy.

Finally, the BPTO reaffirmed the importance of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders through technical meetings and public engagement, as a means to continuously improve the system and align it with market needs.

Overall, the initiatives presented indicate a scenario of gradual evolution of the Brazilian trademark system, with a clear focus on efficiency, consistency in decision-making, and alignment with international standards.

The topic “Industrial Designs 2026”, presented by the Brazilian Patent Office (BPTO), outlines recent developments and future strategies for the industrial design system in Brazil.

In 2025, the system experienced significant growth, with a 35.7% increase in filings compared to 2024, alongside a record number of decisions, which rose by 106.6%. The annual target of 7,000 decisions was exceeded, reaching 8,474 decisions by November, demonstrating substantial gains in efficiency.

For 2026, BPTO proposes a new organizational structure, including a dedicated general coordination and examination division for industrial designs, as well as an expansion of the examination team (from 5 to 8 examiners in first instance and from 1 to 2 in second instance). This restructuring supports ambitious goals, such as 11,000 examination decisions and a reduced average examination time of 9 months.

Projections indicate moderate growth in filings, maintaining the upward trend. Strategic initiatives include the implementation of prior art search tools, the development of AI-based systems to automate application processing, and increased administrative support to enhance operational efficiency.

From a regulatory standpoint, the BPTO emphasized the ongoing review and update of the Trademark Guidelines (Manual of Trademarks), aiming to reflect the evolution of its administrative practice and to further align Brazilian standards with international practices. These updates cover, among other aspects, criteria related to distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion analysis and grounds for refusal, with the objective of enhancing clarity, consistency and predictability in examination outcomes.

Looking ahead, institutional expectations focus on reducing examination backlogs, improving system efficiency, and ultimately achieving fully automated processes using artificial intelligence, making the system more attractive and fostering the internationalization of Brazilian industrial designs.

La entrada Advancing IP in Brazil: BPTO’s 2026 vision for trademarks and industrial designs aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

If you hold trademarks, patents, utility models or industrial designs in Argentina, or are planning to file, this change directly affects the cost of protecting and maintaining your rights.

What Is Changing?

1. New fee schedule from 1 April 2026

All official fees charged by INPI for trademark registration, renewal, opposition, patent filing, examination, annuities and industrial design registrations are updated with effect from 1 April 2026. The new amounts are published in the Official Gazette as an annex to Resolution 75/2026.

2. Creation of the UMAPI

The Resolution creates a new tariff unit called the Unidad de Medida Arancelaria de la Propiedad Industrial (UMAPI). From 1 May 2026, all fees will be expressed in UMAPIs and automatically converted to Argentine pesos each month, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by INDEC.

The initial value is set at one-hundredth of the fee for a new trademark application in one class, which gives an initial UMAPI value of ARS 360.

3. Monthly automatic adjustment

From 1 May 2026, the peso value of the UMAPI is updated every month based on the CPI for the preceding month. The new value applies from the first day of the following month and is published on INPI’s online portal, giving practitioners a short planning window.

4. Scope: what the UMAPI does not cover

The UMAPI system does not apply to variable fees, surcharge differentials, or fees calculated as a percentage of contract value — such as technology transfer registrations (assessed at 0.25% of the contract’s economic value, with a minimum of 90 UMAPIs).

Key Fees at a Glance

The table below shows selected fees under the new schedule, expressed both in UMAPIs and in Argentine pesos at the launch rate of ARS 360/UMAPI.

Amounts subject to monthly revision from 1 May 2026. SMEs, individuals and public universities may benefit from discounts of up to 50% (years 1–10) and 60% (years 11–20) on patent annuities.

Key Dates

• 18 March 2026 — Resolution 75/2026 published in the Official Gazette.
• 1 April 2026 — New fee schedule enters into force.
• 1 May 2026 — UMAPI system becomes operative; monthly CPI adjustment activates.
• Monthly (from May 2026) — UMAPI value updated and published on INPI’s portal.

What Should Rights Holders Do?

The shift to the UMAPI system has two immediate practical consequences: fees will increase every month in line with Argentine inflation, and any budget estimate prepared today will be outdated within weeks.

We recommend:

• Reviewing all upcoming renewals, annuity payments and examination requests scheduled for April 2026 or later, to ensure correct amounts are provisioned.
• Requesting updated cost estimates for any filings in preparation, specifying the expected filing date to allow for the correct UMAPI conversion.
• Checking eligibility for reduced fees if you are an SME, individual inventor or public institution.
• Monitoring INPI’s online portal monthly for the updated UMAPI value.

“The creation of the UMAPI marks a structural shift in Argentine IP fee management: amounts will now change every month, making real-time budget monitoring essential for rights holders.”

How Herrero & Asociados Can Help

Our IP team has been monitoring the Argentine fee reform closely. We can provide:

• Updated cost estimates for trademark, patent, utility model and design filings in Argentina.
• Strategic advice on timing filings to optimise costs before monthly UMAPI increases.
• Full management of your Argentine IP portfolio, including renewals, oppositions and annuity payments.
• Eligibility assessment for SME and individual fee discounts.

Do you have questions about your Argentine IP portfolio?

Contact our team for personalised guidance on the new fee structure: info@herrero.es

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fee amounts are indicative and subject to monthly revision by INPI from 1 May 2026.

La entrada Argentina Raises IP Fees: What foreign rights holders need to know aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

Argentina eliminates a key restrictive regime regarding pharmaceutical patents but reintroduces uncertainty by establishing regulatory exceptions not provided by law.

Background: the controversial 2012 patentability guidelines

The 2012 joint resolution established examination guidelines for chemical and pharmaceutical inventions that significantly limited the possibility of obtaining patent protection for certain types of subject matter, including:

• polymorphs and crystalline forms,
• salts, esters and formulations,
• second medical uses,
• pharmaceutical compositions,
• synthesis methods,
• selection patents, and
• other variants of known compounds.

Many commentators argued that these guidelines went beyond the scope of Argentine Patent Law No. 24,481, effectively introducing additional patentability restrictions not contemplated in the statute or in the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. In practice, however, these criteria were applied by INPI examiners for more than a decade in the examination of pharmaceutical patent applications.

The new resolution: repeal of the prior framework

The new resolution expressly repeals the 2012 regulation, marking a significant shift in Argentina’s patent policy. From a formal standpoint, the repeal removes one of the most criticized administrative instruments affecting the country’s patent system.

For patent applicants and rights holders, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, this development may be seen as a step toward greater alignment with the statutory framework of Argentine patent law and with international patentability standards.

Nevertheless, the practical implications of the reform require closer scrutiny.

“A mixed outcome”: new regulatory exceptions to patent rights

Article 2 of the new resolution introduces a provision that has already generated debate within the IP community. It establishes certain exceptions to the exercise of patent rights, particularly in connection with pharmaceutical inventions.

Article 2 states: “For patents granted as from the entry into force of this resolution relating to pharmaceutical products that, as of that date, are being commercially marketed locally by third parties, patent holders shall not have the right to prevent the continuation of such commercialization nor to claim remuneration”.

This applies to patent applications filed before the date of the aforementioned repeal and that are pending, even if they are granted.

The legal concern arises from the fact that these exceptions are not expressly provided for in the Patent Law but instead are introduced through a regulatory instrument. From the perspective of the principle of legality, this raises questions regarding:

• the regulatory authority of the executive branch to create limitations on patent rights;
• the consistency of these exceptions with the framework established by Patent Law No. 24,481, which enumerates the permissible limitations to patent rights; and
• their compatibility with the standards set forth in the TRIPS Agreement, which requires that exceptions to patent rights comply with specific criteria.

In other words, while the resolution removes a long-standing administrative mechanism that restricted the patentability of certain pharmaceutical inventions, it simultaneously introduces regulatory limitations on the exercise of patent rights.

Practical implications for patent applicants and right holders

The combined effect of these changes creates a mixed landscape for the pharmaceutical sector.

Positive developments

• Elimination of restrictive administrative guidelines applied for more than a decade.
• Potentially greater flexibility in the examination of chemical and pharmaceutical patent applications.

Areas of uncertainty

• Introduction of regulatory exceptions whose legal basis may be open to challenge.
• Possible administrative or judicial disputes regarding the validity of such limitations.
• Continued regulatory uncertainty in a sector that relies heavily on predictable patent protection.

Outlook

The repeal of the 2012 guidelines represents a significant development in Argentina’s patent policy. At the same time, the introduction of new regulatory exceptions suggests that the broader debate over the balance between pharmaceutical innovation and access to medicines remains unresolved.

It will be essential to observe how the National Institute of Industrial Property applies this new framework in the examination of applications, and whether the provisions introduced by the resolution give rise to administrative or judicial disputes any time soon.

La entrada A mixed outcome. Argentina repeals restrictions on pharmaceutical patentability aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

Procedural rules for requests involving the withdrawal of patent applications, abandonment of applications, waiver of granted patents, and withdrawal of petitions filed during patent prosecution.

For a better understanding of the actions, we clarify the meaning of each service, as explained in the Ordinance itself: Ordinance 01/2026

I – Withdrawal of application: at the request of the applicant, it is the act that ends the prosecution of a national patent application considered deposited, without disclosure of its technical content.

In these cases, the request effectively ends the proceeding without disclosure of the technical content of the application, which represents an important step as therefore will not constitute prior art for future patent filings. The withdrawal will be considered valid when submitted within the initial 16 month period following the filing date or priority date.

Applications with early publication or international application admitted to the national phase in Brazil via PCT will not be considered for withdrawal services.

II – Abandonment of application: at the request of the applicant, it is the act that ends the prosecution of a patent application of any nature, after its publication.

After the period of 16 months from the filing date or priority date, the request will be considered an abandonment, not a withdrawal.

For international applications submitted via PCT, the approval of the abandonment will only occur after the publication of the admissibility of the application.

III – Patent waiver: it is the act that extinguishes a patent of any nature due to the waiver by its holder.

The application will be considered a waiver if submitted after the patent has been granted. The patent is considered extinct as of the date of the request, and the protected subject matter becomes part of the public domain.

IV – Withdrawal of petition: it is the act that renders a request (service petition) ineffective.

The only new feature among the services, the BPTO now allows the holder to withdraw a specific petition, provided it is done before the publication corresponding to the service being fulfilled, that is, before the service is analyzed or decided by the Office.

Important to mention that, in joint ownership proceedings, the request for any of the services in question must contain the signature of all depositors, applicants or holders.

These measures, already foreseen among the services offered by the PTO, aim to consolidate the rules to provide greater security, standardization, and transparency to applicants and patent holders so that they can exercise their right to withdraw an application, a service request, or to renounce a patent already granted.

It is certain that the PTO seeks better integration with the application holder by offering services that benefit both the applicant as the PTO itself.

La entrada Brazil’s Patent Office clarifies key procedures: what Ordinance 01/2026 means for applicants aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

Entry into Force and Scope of Application

The amendment enters into force on March 12, 2026, the business day following its publication in the Official Gazette.

Importantly, the new rules will apply only to patent and utility model applications filed on or after March 12, 2026. Applications filed prior to that date will continue to be examined under the procedural framework applicable at the time of filing.

Reduction in the Number of Office Actions

One of the most notable changes introduced by the amendment is the reduction in the number of Office Actions that may be issued during substantive examination.

Under the previous regulatory framework, IMPI could issue up to four Office Actions during the examination process. These Office Actions allowed examiners to raise objections regarding patentability, request clarifications, require the correction of deficiencies, request amendments to the claims or specification, or request additional documentation.

Under the new framework, IMPI will now be limited to issuing a maximum of two Office Actions during the substantive examination of a patent or utility model application.

This modification represents a significant procedural shift in Mexican patent prosecution practice, effectively shortening the examination dialogue between applicants and the patent office.

Introduction of Examiner Interviews

In parallel with the reduction in Office Actions, the amendment formally introduces the possibility of virtual interviews between applicants and examiners during substantive examination.

Applicants may request a virtual meeting with the examiner at any stage of the substantive examination process. Additionally, after the issuance of the first Office Action, IMPI may also propose a meeting to discuss patentability issues identified during the prior art analysis.

This development reflects an effort by IMPI to facilitate more direct communication between applicants and examiners, potentially allowing certain issues to be clarified more efficiently during prosecution.

Practical Implications for Patent Prosecution in Mexico

From a practical perspective, the reduction of the examination process to only two Office Actions will likely require applicants to adopt a more strategic and proactive approach to patent prosecution in Mexico.

With fewer opportunities to address examiner objections, applicants will have less flexibility to refine claim scope, present additional arguments, or introduce amendments during the examination process.

As a result, greater emphasis will need to be placed on the preparation of strong and comprehensive responses from the outset, including well-supported legal and technical arguments as well as carefully considered claim amendments aimed at efficiently overcoming examiner objections.

Applicants and practitioners should therefore review their prosecution strategies for Mexican filings in light of this new framework, particularly for applications filed on or after March 12, 2026.

In light of this development, our team at H&A Mexico will provide the most appropriate prosecution strategy, together with effective recommendations aimed at successfully addressing and overcoming the substantive examination process.

La entrada Mexico: IMPI Introduces Significant Changes to Patent and Utility Model Examination Procedures aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

On February 5, 2026, Argentina and the United States signed the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade and Investment. This bilateral instrument has direct and far-reaching implications for Argentina’s Intellectual Property (IP) framework.

Accession to key international treaties

Argentina has committed to joining the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in 2026. In 2027, it will accede to the international systems for trademark and design registration (Madrid and Hague), the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), UPOV 1991, and the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms. These steps will align Argentina with core international IP standards.

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents

Argentina has undertaken to broadly grant pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents by repealing the existing Joint Resolution that currently restricts their scope. This represents a significant shift in policy and is expected to enhance legal certainty and attract foreign investment in R&D.

Argentina commits to comprehensively modernize its Intellectual Property framework through accession to major international treaties and the strengthening of enforcement mechanisms.

Enforcement and institutional strengthening

Argentina will fully enforce existing international obligations, including the Paris Convention, and strengthen protection for geographical indications. The government will reduce patent backlog, intensify anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting actions both offline and online, enact effective civil and criminal remedies (including injunctions), and potentially establish a specialized IP infringement court.

Legislative and executive implementation

Certain measures require Congressional approval, while others depend on presidential action. Given the strong alignment between both governments, implementation appears politically feasible.

We will continue monitoring developments and report on further regulatory updates.

Author:

Ariel Ibañez
Head of Herrero&Asociados Argentina.
IP Agent – Lawyer.
LinkedIn

 

La entrada Argentina launches structural IP reform following U.S. trade agreement aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

In this new edition, the directory has awarded Bronze recognition to H&A as a recommended firm in Spain and Colombia, in the categories of prosecution and strategy and enforcement and litigation.

In addition, H&A has been selected as a recommended international firm.

Furthermore, the WTR 1000 has individually ranked the following professionals from our offices in Spain and Latin America in the Bronze category, within the corresponding practice areas:

Individuals in Latin America:

• Adriana Peñaranda (Colombia)
• Daniela Lin (Brazil)
• Guillermo Alcaraz (Argentina)

Prosecution and strategy in Spain:

• Anna Jarques
• Alfonso Sabán
• Borja Barrutieta
• Irena Kurteva
• Manuel Tiedemann

Enforcement and litigation in Spain:

• Marta Gimeno

This recognition is the result of the ongoing commitment, technical excellence, and strategic vision with which the H&A team advises national and international companies on the protection and enforcement of their trademark assets.

This recognition in the WTR 1000 2026 ranking reinforces H&A’s international positioning as a leading firm in the field of trademarks.

Recognized as the definitive guide to the world’s leading trademark specialists, the WTR 1000 ranking analyses firms and professionals each year across 88 jurisdictions, based on interviews with clients, competitors and industry experts.

WTR 1000 receives more than 300,000 visits annually and is consulted by brand managers and legal departments of leading global companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Nike, Coca-Cola and Spotify, among others.

The inclusion of H&A and several of its professionals in this edition reaffirms the firm’s commitment to providing rigorous, approachable and business-oriented legal advice, tailored to an increasingly competitive global environment.

At H&A, we would like to thank our clients for their trust and congratulate the entire team on this new international recognition.

La entrada H&A, a leading trademark firm according to the WTR 1000 2026 ranking aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

The first Resolution provides for the issuance of a Special Authorization for production exclusively by legal entities, with prior sanitary inspection and requirements for traceability, control, and safety mechanisms.

Production must be restricted to a THC content of up to 0.3%, a non-psychotropic substance. Only materials demonstrably within this standard may be imported or acquired. All inputs must be previously regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (registered cultivars), and all batches of the produced material must be submitted to laboratory analysis.

The second Resolution on research provides for the granting of Special Authorization exclusively to educational and research institutions recognized by the Ministry of Education, public Scientific, Technological and Innovation Institutions, pharmaceutical industries, and State Defense Agencies.

The products resulting from the research may not be commercialized, but may be shared with other institutions, duly authorized by Anvisa, for the performance of analyses and other activities inherent to the research. Products for research with THC above 0.3% must be obtained through importation with prior authorization from Anvisa and compliance with the requirements established by the UN.

The third Resolution approved creates a specific instrument for non-profit patient associations, which also does not provide for authorization for commercialization. The objective is to evaluate, in a controlled and supervised environment, the sanitary viability of small-scale production and operation, outside the industrial model; and to produce data and evidence on the quality and safety of production by these institutions for future regulatory decisions by Anvisa.

At the same meeting, the Agency approved the update to the regulatory framework for the manufacture and import of cannabis products for medicinal use in the country, Resolution RDC 327/2019.

Three Resolutions from the Board of Directors of the National Health Surveillance Agency in Brazil, concerning the regulation of the stages of cannabis production for medicinal purposes, were presented to address issues of access to products for exclusively medicinal and/or pharmaceutical purposes linked to the protection of the right to health and scientific research initiatives.

Currently, 49 cannabis products are regulated by Anvisa and can be available in pharmacies and drugstores. These products, which are currently on the market, must advance to the stages of clinical studies that indicate a basis for efficacy for future approval as a medicine.

Among the innovations of the resolution is the expansion of the public that can make medicinal use of cannabis-based products, including patients suffering from serious debilitating diseases.

Another novelty is the possibility of new routes of pharmaceutical administration. Until then, only nasal and oral routes were foreseen. Based on already known scientific evidence, the regulation now authorizes dermatological, sublingual, buccal, and inhalational use, which increase adherence to treatment for patients in special conditions.

The full report and video recording of the meeting can be accessed via the following link:

Anvisa aprova por unanimidade regras que cumprem decisão do STJ para produção de cannabis medicinal — Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária – Anvisa

La entrada 1st Ordinary Public Meeting in 2026 of the Board of Directors of the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) in Brazil discusses the regulation of medicinal cannabis production aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

There was a significant increase in the volume of applications in various categories, notably trademarks, which surpassed the unprecedented mark of 500,000 applications – the best result in the historical series.

Reflecting the dynamics of the national economy and the performance of INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property) in Brazil, applications and grants of intellectual property at the Institute grew in 2025, with record numbers in patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and computer programs.

Other sectors, such as patents, software, and industrial designs, also reached record levels, reflecting a dynamic and productive economic environment. Patent applications in 2025 reached more than 29,000, a growth of 6.7% compared to 2024. Industrial designs saw a 35.7% increase, and computer programs a 36.2% increase.

In addition to the high volume of applications, the agency recorded significant progress in the granting of registrations, optimizing the protection of intellectual property in the country. These data demonstrate the strengthening of Brazilian technology and commercial identity in the recent global scenario.

The consolidated statistics reinforce the institution’s vital role in monitoring and validating the progress of the national economy.

Check out all the statistics in the INPI’s December 2025 Monthly Bulletin at the following link:

• Recordes de pedidos são o destaque nas estatísticas de PI em 2025 — Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial
• boletim-mensal-de-pi_resultados-de-dezembro-2025.pdf

La entrada Record numbers of applications are the highlight in IP statistics for 2025 in Brazil aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

What makes this story particularly interesting is not the chemistry of acetylsalicylic acid, nor even its therapeutic effects, but rather the way in which different intellectual property instruments—patents, trademarks and differentiation strategies—were used to maintain the product’s relevance beyond the expiration of its initial protection. Analysing this case allows us to extract lessons that remain applicable today in sectors as diverse as pharmaceuticals, digital technology or the automotive industry.

The patent as a starting point

When Bayer patented acetylsalicylic acid in 1899 in key markets such as the United States and the United Kingdom, it secured a period of exclusivity that limited competitors’ entry and allowed the recovery of investment in research and development. The patent functioned as it typically does in any sector: by granting a temporary monopoly that protects innovation.

However, the very nature of the patent system implies that exclusivity is limited in time and territorial in scope. The Aspirin case clearly illustrates the vulnerability of relying solely on a patent: protection was valid in certain countries but not in others, and it had a fixed expiration date. The strategic question was inevitable: what would happen to the business once that protection expired?

The trademark as a lasting asset

The answer came through branding. From the outset, Bayer focused on giving the product a distinctive name—Aspirin—and linking it to a strong corporate visual identity. This branding effort materialised in concrete elements: easily recognisable packaging, consumer-focused advertising and even the logo printed on the tablets themselves.

As a result, even after the patent expired, the public continued to associate the product with a specific origin. The registered trademark allowed commercial exclusivity to be extended into a space where competitors could only offer “generic acetylsalicylic acid”, while consumers continued to associate the word “Aspirin” with a standard of quality.

The transition from patent to trademark highlights the importance of designing an IP strategy that does not depend on a single legal instrument, but instead combines different layers of protection.

A combined IP strategy

Beyond the trademark, Bayer continued to develop new formulations and applications of acetylsalicylic acid, enabling it to register secondary patents.

For example, the effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks and strokes was discovered long after the original patent had expired. This ongoing innovation allowed Bayer to apply for new patents and maintain a competitive advantage.

This practice, known in the pharmaceutical industry as “evergreening”, does not always guarantee the same level of exclusivity as the original patent, but it does help maintain a degree of technological and market control.

The key lay in structuring a mixed industrial property portfolio:

• Initial patent as a barrier to entry.
• Registered trademark to ensure long-term recognition.
• Additional patents and improvements that partially extended exclusivity.
• Differentiated quality, reinforcing product perception in a growing generic market.

This approach anticipates what we now call “integrated IP strategies”: rather than relying on a single right, available tools are used in a complementary way to protect both technical innovation and market reputation.

The importance of marketing in the Aspirin case

Bayer did not limit itself to marketing an active ingredient, but deliberately worked to associate Aspirin with a reliable, consistent and safe product, even in a context where chemical equivalents already existed.

At the beginning of the 20th century, when the pharmaceutical market was marked by the circulation of medicines with dubious or outright adulterated formulations, the company’s strategy emphasised purity and pharmaceutical quality, clearly differentiating the product from copies and counterfeits. This differentiation was reinforced by a high degree of standardisation, both in the use of the name and logo and in packaging design, conveying the idea of a homogeneous, controlled product clearly identifiable by its corporate origin.

At the same time, communication efforts aimed at doctors and patients helped consolidate Aspirin not only as an effective medicine, but as a safe and trustworthy option. As a result, even after the patent expired, the strength of the distinctive sign allowed Bayer to maintain a differentiated market position and sell Aspirin at a higher price than generic acetylsalicylic acid, supported by the association between the name and a standard of quality.

External factors: IP and geopolitics

The Aspirin case also illustrates how industrial property does not develop in a vacuum, but within an international context subject to political change. After the First World War, Bayer lost trademark rights in several countries as a result of political decisions that redistributed the assets of German companies.

This episode serves as a reminder that the management of intangible assets must take into account external factors such as international treaties, trade tensions or armed conflicts. Today, clear parallels can be seen in debates on technology transfer, export restrictions or limitations on software protection in different territories. The lesson is clear: IP has a legal dimension, but also a geopolitical one that should not be underestimated.

Brand extension and diversification

The prestige of the Aspirin brand was not limited to a single product. Once consolidated, it served as an umbrella for other launches, allowing the company to leverage the recognition already acquired. This practice of brand extension is now common across many sectors: a strong brand becomes an asset that transcends the original product.

The case demonstrates that IP does not only protect what already exists, but can also serve as the foundation for future growth. A well-known brand acts as a platform for diversification and facilitates entry into new segments.

Lessons for today

More than a century later, the Aspirin example continues to offer valuable lessons for any organisation managing innovation and industrial property:

• Do not rely solely on patents. Technical exclusivity is valuable but finite; it must be complemented by other forms of protection.
• Invest in branding from the outset. Building identity while technical protection is in force ensures continuity once it expires.
• Design a mixed portfolio. Patents, trademarks, designs and trade secrets work best when managed together.
• Anticipate international scenarios. Territorial protection requires a global vision and preparation for regulatory or political change.
• Focus on quality as a differentiator. IP protects, but market trust consolidates long-term positioning.

Parallels with current sectors

The Aspirin model is replicated across different industries.

Apple, for example, combines patents and industrial designs with an extremely powerful brand that ensures loyalty beyond technical specifications. Tesla, on the other hand, has chosen to open part of its patent portfolio, relying instead on brand strength and its technological ecosystem to maintain leadership.

Post-it Notes (3M) emerged from a “failure” in the search for a strong adhesive. Initial patents provided exclusivity, but it was the trademark and distinctive design that transformed the product into an office icon, eventually becoming synonymous with sticky notes.

Lycra (DuPont), patented in 1962, became a registered trademark that survived long beyond technical protection. Even today, Lycra remains associated with quality in high-performance garments, despite the proliferation of generic alternatives.

In all these cases, the conclusion is similar: IP must be conceived as an integral strategy. An isolated patent may offer a temporary advantage, but only an approach combining different intangible assets guarantees long-term sustainability.

The omeprazole case: innovation without a brand legacy

Omeprazole, launched by AstraZeneca in the late 1980s under the brand Losec/Prilosec, revolutionised the treatment of acid reflux and peptic ulcers. Its patent protected it for over a decade and generated billions in revenue. However, once the patent expired, the brand did not survive in the collective imagination: the product quickly became identified by its generic name.

Unlike aspirin, which Bayer turned into a lasting brand asset even beyond patent protection, AstraZeneca failed to ensure that the brand endured once the patent expired (2001 in the US, earlier in other markets). The word that remained in the minds of doctors and patients was “omeprazole”. Today, although omeprazole remains one of the most prescribed and consumed medicines worldwide, the brand value built during the exclusivity period has largely disappeared.

This contrast illustrates a key point: a patent may guarantee temporary profitability, but only a comprehensive IP strategy—where the brand is reinforced as an intangible asset—ensures a lasting legacy.

The history of Aspirin is not merely that of a successful medicine, but a case study in industrial property management. Its current relevance lies in demonstrating that innovation does not end with product development, but continues in how it is protected, communicated and adapted over time.

For today’s companies, the message is clear:

IP should not be regarded as a legal formality, but as a strategic component of the business.

A patent may expire by its legal nature; a well-managed brand, by contrast, can accompany innovation for generations, provided it is built on a solid, technically sound and legally protected foundation.

Designing an effective industrial property strategy goes far beyond registering a patent or trademark. At H&A, we help you build an IP portfolio aligned with your business objectives, combining legal protection, strategic vision and long-term projection.

This analysis, prepared by Cristina Sendín, has been reported on by specialized media outlets such as Law & Trends.

La entrada From patent to brand: the Aspirin case as a lesson in industrial property strategy aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

Most official fees will increase by approximately 5%, including search, examination, designation, grant and renewal fees. Filing fees (including excess page fees and the additional fee for multi-generation divisional applications), as well as opposition and appeal fees, will remain unchanged.

In view of this upcoming increase, applicants may benefit from significant cost savings by taking action in advance. In particular, they may secure the current fee levels by entering applications into the European regional phase before 1 April 2026, or by advancing the payment of examination and designation fees for pending divisional applications.

At H&A, we would be pleased to review your European patent portfolio and advise on whether early filing or advance payments could be advantageous in your specific case. Should you wish to take proactive steps ahead of the fee increase, please do not hesitate to contact us; our team will be happy to assist you in planning and implementing the most cost-effective strategy.

Further information is available in the EPO’s official announcement:
https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/decision-administrative-council-11-december-2025

La entrada EPO Official Fees Increasing in 2026 : Time to act aparece primero en H&A Internacional.

The Regulation is conceived as an additional component of the European preparedness and response toolbox (developed largely in the wake of the COVID-19 experience) and is expressly designed as a measure of last resort, with relevant conditions, limits and safeguards for both patent holders and potential industrial licensees.

Objectives and scope of the Regulation

The Regulation aims to ensure the possibility of granting Union compulsory licences where a crisis or emergency affects the EU and a crisis/emergency mode has been activated under specific EU instruments. Its logic is clearly linked to the internal market: to avoid fragmented responses based on national licences, which are ill-suited to addressing cross-border supply chains.

The IP rights covered by the Regulation include patents, utility models and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs).

In addition, the Regulation operates without prejudice to copyright frameworks, sui generis database rights and trade secrets. Importantly, it does not impose any obligation to disclose trade secrets.

The mechanism may only be activated in the context of crisis or emergency modes declared under EU instruments, such as those relating to serious cross-border threats to health.

Last-resort nature and requirements

As a measure of last resort, the Commission may only grant a Union compulsory license if all key conditions are met, including:

• A crisis or emergency mode has been declared under a relevant EU mechanism.
• The Commission concludes that use of the protected invention is necessary to supply relevant crisis products in the EU.
• Other means (including voluntary agreements) are not available within a reasonable timeframe or do not ensure access.
• The patent owner has been given the opportunity to submit observations.

Content and limits of the license: scope, duration, territory and licensee capacity

Union compulsory licenses are subject to strict limitations:

• They are non-exclusive and, in principle, non-transferable.
• Their scope and duration are strictly limited to the objective and duration of the crisis or emergency.
• Territorial scope is strictly limited to the EU.
• They automatically expire when the crisis or emergency mode ends.
• They may only be granted to entities with the capacity to exploit the invention rapidly and appropriately (including facilities, know-how and supply chains).

At a minimum, the Commission must specify the affected rights (patent/application/SPC/utility model), the right holder, the licensee, the duration, the remuneration, the product identification and the maximum quantity to be manufactured or marketed.

It is also noteworthy that certain strategic sectors, such as gas, microchips and defense, are excluded from the scope of the Regulation.

Remuneration: “adequate” and linked to economic value and public funding

Remuneration is not symbolic. The licensee must pay adequate remuneration, determined by the Commission. In setting the amount, the following factors are taken into account:

• The economic value of the authorised activities.
• The circumstances of the case, including any public funding received for the development of the invention.
• The opinion of the advisory body and the observations of the parties.

Furthermore, if a licensed published application does not ultimately result in the grant of a patent, the owner must reimburse the remuneration paid (mutatis mutandis for utility models).

Entry into force

The Regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication, i.e. on 19 January 2026.

La entrada New Regulation (EU) 2025/2645: EU compulsory licenses for crisis management aparece primero en H&A Internacional.