By signing an arbitration clause, the parties to the arbitration agreement freely and voluntarily grant an arbitrator or arbitration tribunal full and sufficient competence to resolve conflicts that might arise between said parties due to the execution of a commercial contract. The parties' choice of arbitrator is crucial because the validity and soundness of the final arbitration resolution will depend on their experience.
In 2016 Joshua Dean Nelson commenced arbitration against Mexico on behalf of Telefacil México, SA de CV and himself under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). According to Nelson, the Federal Telecommunications Institute had prevented him from participating in the telecoms market by issuing measures that he alleged violated Chapter 11 of NAFTA. However, the tribunal recently rejected the claims and held that Telefacil owed Mexico $2.05 million in arbitration costs.
Since 11 March 2020 dispute resolution in Mexico has been significantly affected due to the COVID-19 crisis. In such exceptional circumstances, alternative dispute resolution has taken on greater importance, as it offers parties the chance to continue proceedings (with restrictions) as efficiently as possible without having to wait for the judicial branch to resume operations.
Over the past three decades, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has increased in popularity to the point that most parties appear to prefer it to having the courts resolve their conflicts. The benefits of ADR are flexibility, reduced costs and the opportunity to actively participate in the resolution of the dispute. However, these benefits depend on the parties voluntarily honouring the commitments adopted during the ADR proceedings.
Precautionary measures are an essential way in which to preserve assets that are subject to dispute or ensure that a final award is enforceable. Arbitration offers many advantages over judicial proceedings. However, in practice, such measures need to be issued more quickly in order to achieve the objectives for which they are designed. Notably, under Mexican law, such measures are issued much faster and more effectively than those issued under the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration rules.
The Federal Law of Protection for Industrial Property recently came into force and introduced provisions explicitly concerning double patenting for the first time in Mexico. Issuing double patenting objections is a common practice for the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property, when examiners consider that the invention to be protected in a divisional application is already covered or protected by the parent case. This article examines the double patenting objection under the new law.
The COVID-19 pandemic has evidenced the need for an efficient and safe system for the electronic prosecution of patent applications and has forced the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property to make such a system available for applications originally filed in paper format. However, as this article shows, the path to this outcome has not been straightforward.
The Industrial Property Law is currently under revision in the Senate. Two legal initiatives proposed by different senators will have to be studied, but one of them is more likely to prevail because it has the support of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property and aims to substitute the current law in its entirety. One of the proposal's most significant objectives relates to updating the eligibility criteria of biotechnology-related inventions.
In order to recover damages following a violation of their rights, industrial property owners must first file an administrative infringement action before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property in order to obtain a declaration of infringement and then undergo a civil court trial. This process can take up to five years and rights holders often choose not to claim compensation. As such, a recent proposal aims to reform the process for recovering damages caused by a violation of industrial property rights.
The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property's examination criteria was previously consistent enough to provide patent applicants with legal certainty about the eligibility of plant-related inventions. However, recent changes to the criteria for these kinds of invention have resulted in uncertainty which may affect even the validity of already granted patents.