Mexico’s patent examination 2026: four months after the IMPI reform

Where we left off in March

A few months ago, we published an alert on a significant regulatory change introduced by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI): the amendment to examination procedures for patent and utility model applications in Mexico, published in the Official Gazette on March 11, 2026, and entering into force on March 12, 2026.

The reform represented one of the most substantive changes to Mexican patent prosecution practice in recent years, and one that, we argued at the time, would require applicants and their representatives to fundamentally rethink how they approach the examination process in Mexico.

For those who missed it, or who would benefit from a brief recap before we turn to what we are now observing in practice, the four key elements of the IMPI amendment were as follows:

• Reduction in the number of Office Actions: Perhaps the most immediately impactful change: IMPI reduced the maximum number of Office Actions that may be issued during substantive examinations from four to two. Under the previous framework, the back-and-forth between applicants and the patent office could extend through multiple rounds, giving both sides the opportunity to refine positions, introduce new arguments, and work toward a mutually acceptable claim scope. That extended dialogue has been substantially reduced, and applicants now face significantly fewer opportunities to refine their positions during prosecution. Two rounds now represent the procedural limit under the revised examination.
• Introduction of formal examiner interviews: In parallel with the reduction in Office Actions, the IMPI amendment introduced, for the first time in Mexican patent prosecution practice, the possibility of virtual interviews between applicants and examiners during substantive examination. These interviews may be requested by the applicant at any stage of the process. Additionally, after the issuance of the first Office Action, IMPI itself may propose a meeting to discuss the patentability issues identified during prior art analysis. This is a meaningful development that opens a channel of direct communication that did not previously exist in a formal sense.
• Scope and entry into force: The new rules entered into force on March 12, 2026. Crucially, the amendment applies only to patent and utility model applications filed on or after that date. Applications filed prior to March 12, 2026, continue to be examined under the procedural framework applicable at the time of filing. This means that, for the time being, practitioners are managing two parallel tracks; the implications of the new IMPI framework are beginning to manifest specifically in those 2026 filings.
• Strategic implications from day one: As we noted in our March article, the reduction in available Office Actions places a significantly higher premium on the quality of the initial filing and on the strength and precision of the first response to examiner’s objection. With fewer opportunities to correct courses during examination, applicants can no longer rely on a prolonged dialogue to gradually refine claim scope or introduce arguments incrementally. From the outset, every submission must be treated as potentially decisive, which demands a level of preparation and strategic foresight that goes well beyond what many applicants and practitioners have historically considered necessary in Mexican patent prosecution.

In short, the reform has increased both the procedural efficiency expectations placed upon applicants and the strategic importance of each stage of examination, and it did so deliberately, with the clear intention of creating a leaner, more efficient process.

The question we now face is not whether the ambition behind the reform was justified, but whether the conditions are in place for that ambition to be realized. What the early signs tell us about the road ahead is what we turn to next.

Two office actions. No second chance. Mexico’s patent examination process has changed — and so must your approach to it.

4 months later: what are we already seeing?

Something worth noting has already emerged. In the normal course of IMPI’s work, substantive examination of patent applications filed in 2026 would not typically begin for several years; at present, IMPI is still working through applications filed in 2022 and 2023. Yet we are already seeing first substantive Office Actions being issued on applications filed in 2026, something that had not been seen before and that has come as a surprise to Mexican IP firms across the board.

This accelerated pace is, on its face, encouraging. But it also raises questions about Mexico patent prosecution strategy that practitioners and applicants cannot afford to ignore.

Key questions for patent applicants in Mexico

We put the following questions forward because every significant reform deserves scrutiny, and it is through that scrutiny that applicants and their representatives will be best positioned to make informed, strategic decisions in the months ahead.

1. How will IMPI examiners adapt to a more independent examination model?

Mexican patent examiners have traditionally relied heavily on the criteria and findings of other major patent offices — particularly the EPO and the USPTO — as reference points during examination. International Search Reports from PCT applications have routinely formed the basis for IMPI’s own analysis.

Under the new IMPI framework, will examiners be equipped and prepared to conduct their own independent prior art searches and evaluate applications fully on their own merits, without the external reference points that have long been a familiar part of Mexican prosecution practice?

While Mexican patent examiners are, by and large, highly trained professionals with deep technical knowledge, the question worth asking is whether all examiners will be equally equipped to conduct a full, independent examination on the merits of each application, without the external reference points that have long been a familiar and accepted part of Mexican prosecution practice. International Search Reports from PCT proceedings and the criteria applied by the EPO and USPTO have historically provided a helpful framework. Under the new model, that framework may no longer be available in the same way, and examiners will need to rely more fully on their own analysis and prior art searches. This is a higher bar, and one that deserves attention.

2. What happens when examiner and applicant do not reach agreement — with only one round left?

Under the previous framework, a back-and-forth of up to four Office Actions gave both examiners and applicants the opportunity to refine objections, sharpen arguments, and narrow claims in a collaborative dialogue. That buffer is now gone.

If a first Office Action reflects a misunderstanding of the invention — or a prior art citation that the examiner has not fully analyzed — will there be enough room within a single response to turn the tide?

More to the point: examiners have traditionally been able to raise objections based on cited prior art and then evaluate the applicant’s response to both the cited references and the proposed amendments. Under the new model, the examiner must make a definitive decision after just two rounds. This represents a much higher bar for both sides.

It is worth recalling that one of the most constructive elements of this reform is precisely the formal introduction of virtual interviews between applicants and IMPI examiners, which may be requested by the applicant — or proposed by the examiner — at any stage of the substantive examination process. This is an important tool, and one that should not be left for the last. In fact, we would strongly encourage applicants and their representatives to seek examiner engagement as early as possible — ideally after the first Office Action, or even before, in order to identify and address patentability concerns before reaching the second and final round. Waiting until the last Office Action to open that dialogue may simply be too late and could place the patent application at unnecessary risk. The interview mechanism is only as valuable as the moment at which it is used.

If the second and final Office Action issues as a rejection, will the applicant still have meaningful access to examiner interviews before that door closes? We genuinely hope the answer is yes.

3. Will Mexico see a surge in patent appeals — and is the system ready?

If applicants exhaust their two Office Actions without reaching a grant, the next step is an appeal before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA). Appeals are expensive, time-consuming, and introduce a degree of unpredictability that neither applicants nor the system benefit from.

Are we moving toward a more efficient patent prosecution process in Mexico — or will the reduction in Office Actions simply shift the bottleneck downstream, generating a wave of appeals that IMPI and the courts are not yet equipped to absorb?

This is perhaps the most consequential question of all. And the answer will only become clear over the next 12 to 18 months, as the first applications filed under the new framework work their way through examination. What is certain, however, is that an increase in appeals would place significant additional strain on an already stretched judicial system. The TFJA handles a broad docket; a surge in IP appeals would not only slow resolution times but could also introduce inconsistency in outcomes, precisely the kind of unpredictability that deters foreign applicants from investing in patent protection in Mexico. It is worth asking, then, whether the infrastructure — both at IMPI and in the courts — is ready for that scenario, and what steps might be taken proactively to prevent it.

4. Will faster grants signal quality — or create uncertainty?

If patents begin to be granted at an unusually rapid pace, will applicants and the market trust the quality of those grants? Or will speed itself become a source of uncertainty in Mexican IP practice?

Nobody wants uncertainty. And in intellectual property, uncertainty about the robustness of granted rights is one of the most corrosive forces there is: for patentees, for competitors, and for the overall attractiveness of a jurisdiction as a place worth investing in. If the market begins to perceive Mexican patents as easily obtained but weakly substantiated, the long-term damage to Mexico’s IP ecosystem could outweigh any short-term efficiency gains. Quality and speed are not mutually exclusive, but achieving both simultaneously requires deliberate institutional effort.

A moment of transition and opportunity for patent strategy in Mexico

Mexico has long been a market where companies have chosen to protect their intellectual property, and significant work has been done over many years to make it so. This IMPI reform reflects genuine ambition: a desire to modernize and streamline a patent prosecution process that, by all accounts, needs updating.

We welcome that ambition. But we also believe it is our responsibility, as practitioners who work in this system every day, to ask questions that will help determine whether this reform achieves its goals. Mexico has worked hard to position itself as an attractive jurisdiction for intellectual property protection, and that positioning is worth protecting. A reform that streamlines prosecution while maintaining rigorous, high-quality examination would be a genuine achievement. One that trades in depth for speed, without the infrastructure to support it, would be a setback, not a step forward. The coming months will tell us which direction this is heading. In the meantime, preparation is the best insurance any applicant can have.

A note on continuity from our March 2026 article: We committed then to helping our clients navigate these changes with the most appropriate prosecution strategy. That commitment stands.

At H&A Mexico, we have been developing specific approaches to patent prosecution under the new IMPI framework, built around stronger initial filings, filing more mature claim sets; preparing fallback claim strategies in advance; earlier and more intensive examiner engagement, and strategic use of the virtual interview process. We are ready to walk you through what that looks like for your portfolio. Do not hesitate to reach out.