Introduction
On April 3, 2026, the Decree reforming, adding, and repealing various provisions of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (the "LFPPI") was published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación), concerning Technology Transfer and the Simplification of the Patent and Registration Protection Process. The Decree came into effect on the day following its publication, that is, on April 4, 2026.
The reform modifies more than 200 articles of the LFPPI and responds to the need to modernize and streamline the Mexican industrial property system, in line with the commitments undertaken by Mexico under Chapter 20 of the Treaty between Mexico, the United States, and Canada (USMCA).
The main pillars of the reform are: the streamlining and simplification of proceedings before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property ("IMPI"); the promotion of technology transfer; the expansion of protectable subject matter in the area of distinctive signs; and the strengthening of the enforcement regime, including express provisions on artificial intelligence.
Below is a summary of the most relevant changes, organized by subject matter.
Provisional patent application (Article 105 Bis)
The figure of the provisional patent application is incorporated, unprecedented in the national legal framework. Through this mechanism, the inventor or their successor in interest may file an application with minimal requirements — the inventor's name and a description of the invention — in order to be granted an early filing date. From that date, a non-extendable period of twelve months will be available to file the complete formal application; otherwise, the provisional application will be deemed declined. It is important to note that this application does not benefit from the right of international priority.
Practical impact: This tool is particularly valuable for companies and inventors seeking to secure a filing date while refining their inventions or defining their protection strategy, reducing the risk of loss of novelty due to their own disclosures or those of third parties.
Maximum timeframes for resolution (Article 111 Bis)
For the first time, mandatory maximum timeframes are established for the Institute to decide on the grant or refusal of rights: one year for patents, utility models, and industrial designs (counted from the commencement of the substantive examination); and two months for integrated circuit layout designs and for industrial design renewals.
Practical impact: The establishment of these timeframes grants applicants greater legal certainty and predictability in the management of their portfolios, in addition to constituting the basis for activating the new Mandatory Resolution Issuance Procedure (described below) when the Institute incurs delays.
Restoration of the right of priority (Article 42)
The possibility of restoring a right of priority is introduced when the application is filed outside the timeframes provided by law, provided that the request is made within two months following the expiration of the applicable period and the corresponding fee is paid.
Reinstatement of application rights (Article 113 Bis)
A reinstatement mechanism is created for applicants who have failed to timely comply with the requirements set forth in Articles 106, 110, and 111, by filing a petition within fifteen business days following the expiration of the missed deadline, together with the payment of the corresponding fee and simultaneous compliance with the omitted requirement.
Practical impact: Both mechanisms serve as safety nets that allow rights holders to remedy procedural errors or delays that, under the previous legislation, would have resulted in the irreversible loss of rights or lengthy challenges before the courts.
Administrative claim of ownership (Article 40 Bis)
An administrative mechanism is incorporated to claim ownership of a patent or registration when these have been granted to a person who was not entitled to obtain them, exercisable at any time during the term of the right.
Practical impact: This procedure — which replaces the former ground for nullity based on lack of standing — allows rightful owners to recover their rights without the need to annul the registration, thereby preserving the continuity of protection.
Supplementary certificate for delay in sanitary registration (Article 136 Bis)
A new supplementary certificate linked to unreasonable delays in the granting of sanitary registrations is added, with a maximum extension of five years.
Simultaneously, the second paragraph of Article 135, which excluded Bolar-type exceptions from the computation of the supplementary certificate, is repealed.
Practical impact: For the pharmaceutical industry, this mechanism allows compensation for the erosion of the effective patent term caused by regulatory delays. The simultaneous repeal of the Bolar restriction impacts the market entry planning of generic competitors.
Elimination of grounds for nullity (Articles 154, 155, 156, and 157)
The ground for nullity based on lack of standing of the rights holder in patents, utility models, industrial designs, and integrated circuit layout designs is eliminated, which is consistent with the incorporation of the new ownership claim procedure under Article 40 Bis.
Practical impact: The holders of these rights benefit from greater legal certainty, as a challenge vector that could be used as a strategy to invalidate validly granted registrations is eliminated.
New types of trademarks (Article 172)
The catalogue of registrable signs is expanded, incorporating three new modalities: position marks (subsection VIII), motion marks (subsection IX), and multimedia marks (subsection X).
Practical impact: Companies that have developed non-conventional brand identity elements — such as the distinctive placement of an element on a product, logo animations, or audiovisual brand experiences — will now be able to obtain formal protection in Mexico, aligning with the possibilities already available in the European Union and other jurisdictions.
New impediments to registration (Article 173)
New impediments to trademark registration are incorporated. Subsection I Bis establishes as an impediment technical names, names of common use, and elements lacking distinctiveness with respect to the goods or services they seek to distinguish.
Subsection XXIII prohibits the registration of signs linked to the cultural heritage, knowledge, and expressions of indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples and communities, unless the application originates from members of such communities with authorization from their general assembly.
Practical impact: Companies that market products inspired by indigenous cultural elements must conduct a prior analysis of their distinctive signs to assess potential conflicts with this new impediment and, where applicable, obtain the corresponding authorizations.
Good faith declaration in applications and renewals (Article 178)
It is established that, both when applying for registration and when renewing a trademark, the interested party must declare under oath that the application is free from deception or bad faith.
Practical impact: This declaration strengthens the mechanisms against bad faith registrations and speculative applications, and may serve as a basis for future nullity or cancellation actions if the declaration is shown to be false.
Maximum timeframes for resolution in trademark proceedings (Articles 229 and 229 Bis)
Maximum timeframes of five months are set for the resolution of trademark proceedings: counted from the expiration of the period under Article 225 when there are requirements or oppositions, or from the filing date of the application when there are none. These timeframes also apply to trade notices and trade names.
Practical impact: Rights holders will be able to plan with greater certainty their product launch and brand expansion strategies, and will have a legal basis to demand the issuance of decisions when the Institute exceeds these timeframes.
New grounds for suspension of the registration process (Article 228)
The grounds for suspension of the trademark registration process are expanded, now allowing suspension when there are pending nullity, non-use cancellation, or cessation of effects actions against prior registrations that may conflict with subsequent applications.
Practical impact: This provision benefits applicants whose trademarks are rejected based on registrations that are under challenge, preventing premature refusals that would later need to be reversed through appeals.
Elimination of Article 203 (trade notices for establishments)
Article 203, which established a special supplementary class for trade notices intended to advertise establishments or businesses, is repealed.
Mandatory recordal of corporate changes (Articles 257 Bis and 257 Ter)
The recordal of changes of name, corporate name, business name, or transformation of the legal regime of the rights holder is expressly regulated, which must be recorded before the Institute to be effective against third parties. A single filing for multiple applications or registrations is permitted.
Practical impact: Companies that have undergone merger, spin-off, or corporate restructuring processes must prioritize the regularization of their portfolios before IMPI to avoid the unenforceability of their rights against third parties.
Expansion of the scope of the Law (Article 2, subsection V)
The purpose of the LFPPI is reformed to expressly include the promotion and encouragement of technology transfer as one of its objectives, complementing the dissemination of technological knowledge already contemplated by the statute.
New powers of the Institute (Article 5)
The powers of IMPI are expanded and specified in various relevant areas. The Institute must now provide legal advice on matters of licenses, assignments, transfers of rights, and other instruments for entering into technology transfer agreements.
The obligation to cooperate with the Ministry of Science, Humanities, Technology, and Innovation for the development of innovation and the protection of industrial property is established (subsection XXXII Bis).
The mandate to promote the adoption of regulatory compliance systems in the field of industrial property among productive sectors, through training, awareness, and capacity-building programs, is incorporated (subsection XXXII Ter).
Reduction and establishment of timeframes
Maximum timeframes for the resolution of various proceedings related to appellations of origin and geographical indications are incorporated.
Noteworthy is the establishment of a maximum period of six months for the examination of the application for a declaration of protection (Article 278), a period of five months for the final decision (Article 286), and a period of two months for use authorizations and renewal decisions (Articles 300 and 301).
Additionally, a period of five months is established for the resolution of the recordal of recognition of appellations of origin and geographical indications protected abroad (Article 318).
Specialized Technical Committee (Articles 327 Bis, 327 Ter, and 327 Quater)
An entirely new mechanism called the "Mandatory Resolution Issuance Procedure for Patents or Registrations" is created.
When the Institute has not issued a final decision on patent proceedings, trademark registrations, renewals, or other proceedings within the legally prescribed timeframes, applicants may appear before the Specialized Technical Committee, constituted by the Institute's Governing Board, to request the initiation of this procedure.
Once the request is received, the Committee will require the public servant responsible for the proceeding to submit a report within ten business days. If the record shows that the timeframes were exceeded without justification, the Committee will require the issuance of a final decision within ten business days, with the possibility of initiating administrative liability proceedings in the event of non-compliance.
The Committee's determinations shall not be subject to challenge or appeal.
The Governing Board has a period of thirty days from the entry into force of the Decree to establish this Committee and issue the guidelines for its composition, operation, and functioning (Fifth Transitory Article).
Use of artificial intelligence as an aggravating factor (Article 386)
It is expressly established that the infringements set forth in the LFPPI shall also be sanctioned when committed through the use of artificial intelligence.
Practical impact: Companies using generative AI tools to create content, designs, names, or brand elements must implement pre-publication or pre-commercialization review protocols, as liability for infringements is not mitigated by the automated nature of the conduct.
Ambush marketing as an infringement (Article 386, subsection II, paragraph e)
The creation of a false appearance of official sponsorship between a distinctive sign and a public or private mass gathering event is classified as an administrative infringement.
Practical impact: Marketing departments must review their advertising strategies — especially in the lead-up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup — to ensure that they do not create an impression of unauthorized association or sponsorship with mass events, which now constitutes a specific infringement sanctionable by IMPI.
Elimination of precedence in sanctions (Article 388)
It is specified that sanctions shall be applied based on the severity of the conduct, without specific precedence, granting greater flexibility to the Institute.
Practical impact: This means that IMPI may impose more severe sanctions — including temporary closure — from the first infringement when the severity so warrants, without the need to first exhaust lesser sanctions.
Administrative infringement declaration through electronic means (Article 328)
The Institute is empowered to conduct and resolve administrative infringement declarations through electronic means.
Practical impact: Rights holders will be able to pursue enforcement actions with greater agility and lower operational costs, as the need for physical filings and in-person appearances is reduced.
The Second Transitory Article establishes that matters pending resolution at the time the Decree comes into effect shall be concluded in accordance with the provisions in effect at the time they were initiated. However, the Mandatory Resolution Issuance Procedure may be applied to pending proceedings once the Specialized Technical Committee has been established.
The Federal Executive must make the necessary regulatory adjustments (Fourth Transitory Article), and until such adjustments are issued, the prior provisions shall remain in effect insofar as they do not conflict with the new Decree.
We remain at your disposal to analyze the specific impact of this reform on your operations and industrial property assets, as well as to assist you in the implementation of any pertinent actions.
Awards
.svg){kind=small}
