On April 3, 2026, the Decree amending various provisions of the Federal Law on the Protection of Industrial Property (“LFPPI”) was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, introducing significant changes that directly impact the way companies protect, manage, and exploit their intangible assets in Mexico.
While the reform aims to move toward a more modern and efficient system, it also poses operational and strategic challenges that must be carefully evaluated by rights holders.
1. A More Streamlined System: Impact on Processing Times and Protection Strategies
One of the most significant changes is the introduction of maximum processing deadlines by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI):
- Up to four years for patents and utility models
- Up to two years for industrial designs
This reduces legal uncertainty and allows companies to plan the exploitation of their rights with greater precision.
Likewise, the possibility of early publication of patent applications is introduced (a feature existing in legal systems such as that of the U.S., which addresses specific circumstances but does not exist in Europe, for example), which can be used strategically to:
- Generate effects vis-à-vis third parties at an earlier stage
- Strengthen positions in commercial or investment negotiations
- Deter potential infringers
But it can also pose risks such as:
- Premature disclosure of technical information, which may facilitate competitors’ strategies regarding the same innovation
- Advancing publication without a clear strategy may weaken the competitive advantage in highly dynamic markets
2. Industrial Property and Technology: First Steps Toward Regulating AI
The reform includes references to new infringing activities related to the use of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.
Although regulatory development is still in its early stages, it is clear that authorities are beginning to recognize:
- New forms of creation and exploitation of intangible assets
- Risks associated with the misuse of technologies
- The need to update protection frameworks
For technology and creative companies, this implies the need to review their business models and protection strategies, especially in projects involving AI.
3. New Offenses and Technological Challenges
A particularly significant aspect is the inclusion of offenses related to the use of artificial intelligence, which demonstrates how the regulatory framework is adapting to contemporary technological challenges. Although the regulation is still in its early stages, this regulatory recognition paves the way for future developments regarding:
- ownership of AI-generated inventions,
liability for the misuse of technologies, and
protection against new forms of exploitation of intangible assets.
4. Trademarks: Greater Control, but Also Greater Strategic Demands
The reform reinforces the principle that the trademark system should not be merely a matter of registration, but rather functional and linked to actual use in the market.
a) Strengthening the Principle of Actual Use
Advantages:
- It strengthens the ability to combat speculative or bad-faith registrations
- It strengthens the position of owners who actually use their trademarks
Risks:
- The burden on owners to document and retain evidence of use increases
- Defensive portfolios or “reserve” trademarks may become more vulnerable to cancellation actions
b) Greater scrutiny of applications and oppositions
A trend toward more substantive examination by the authority is consolidated, as well as a more active use of opposition mechanisms.
Advantages:
- Improved quality of trademark registration
- Reduced risk of conflicting coexistence
Risks:
- Potentially longer or more complex procedures
Increased costs associated with monitoring, oppositions, and portfolio defense
c) Practical implications for companies
Companies will need to shift from a strategy of accumulating registrations to one of active portfolio management, which entails:
- Periodic usage audits
- Clear commercial exploitation strategies
- Constant monitoring of third-party applications
5. Introduction of new grounds for refusing trademark registrations.
Although the LFPPI had already introduced several changes since 2020, this amendment added new provisions to Article 173 regarding what cannot be registered as a trademark:
- reserved rights (titles of publications and periodicals)
- partial or complete reproduction of works
- signs that are identical or confusingly similar to elements that form part of or are linked to cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions
- collective intellectual property of indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples and communities
Although the intent of the reform is considered positive, some of these concepts are ambiguous, and the scope of their protection is not entirely clear.
6. Unresolved Issues
The reform overlooked several issues of critical importance, to name a few:
- Green patents
- Franchises (given that Mexico is a major player in this legal framework)
- Business models
- Addressing delays in response times for administrative proceedings filed with the IMPI (invalidations, expirations, infringements, and trade-related infringements)
7. What should companies do in light of this reform?
In light of these changes, it is advisable to:
- Review industrial property portfolios to identify strategic assets
- Evaluate the advisability of early publication of patent applications
- Strengthen licensing and technology transfer frameworks
- Implement internal policies regarding the use of artificial intelligence
- Anticipate impacts on legal audit and asset valuation processes
Conclusion
Although the reform of the LFPPI did not address some of the specific needs of the system mentioned above, it certainly represents a step forward in the modernization of Mexico’s industrial property system. However, its effective implementation will be crucial for the projected benefits to materialize.
From a business perspective, the message is clear: the new regulatory framework offers valuable tools, but it also requires a more sophisticated, informed, and strategic management of intangible assets.
Companies that successfully balance the benefits and risks of this reform will be better positioned to capitalize on its effects in an increasingly competitive and technology-driven environment.
If required any further information regarding the content of this Alert, please contact:
Lidia Velázquez
