There have been a lot of discussions about the term extension of pipe-line patents in Mexico. The discussions have included the language used in Transitory Article Twelve of the Industrial Property Law of 1991 (allowing the pipe-line patents) and the rulings from the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs (FCTAA) regarding this matter.

The decisions of the FCTAA have made the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) to acknowledge the extension of term of several pipe-line patents, for the same extended term granted to the corresponding foreign patent from which the priority was claimed. Further, the decisions of the Highest Chamber of the FCTAA allowing the extension of term are now binding*. For a more detailed explanation about Mexican pipe-line patents and their extension, you may review the post  The extension of life of patents in Mexico.

In spite of the relatively large number of extended pipe-line patents, all the controversy surrounding the pipe-line patents themselves and their life extensions and that the FCTAA published the first precedent regarding this matter in 2005, neither the Federal Courts of Appeals nor the Supreme Court had published any ruling concerning the term extension of pipe-line patents, until January 2010.

The January 2010 issue of the Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation publishes a non-binding decision of he First Court of Appeals in Administrative Matters of the First Circuit (based in Mexico City)**. This decision is associated to a final appeal (Amparo Directo) filed by the well-known Mexican pharmaceutical company Probiomed, S.A. de C.V. The decision rules that the term of pipe-line patents, and of all patents in general, cannot be extended whatsoever. This decision is in open conflict with the binding ruling of the FCTAA, and restarts a discussion that I thought was (a few technicalities aside) essentially over, as a consequence of the binding precedent from the FCTAA and because all pipe-line patents, even the extended ones, should expire by mid 2012 (the statute provided that no pipe-line patent could have a term longer than 20 years counted from the filing date in Mexico).

Notwithstanding the above, the decision of the Federal Court of Appeals does not imply an actual change in the way Transitory Article Twelve of the 1991 Industrial Property Statute has been understood, particularly concerning the extension of pipe-line patents.

The decision of the First Court of Appeals in Mexico City is non binding (the binding precedents of the Highest Chamber of the FCTAA are not binding for  the District Courts and Courts of Appeals, only for the different lower Chambers of the FCTAA), so there is no reason for the Specialized Chamber in Intellectual Property of the FCTAA to stop following the binding decision of the Highest Chamber of the FCTAA and continue ordering the MPTO to acknowledge the term extension of pipe-line patents when the foreign patent offices grant the term extension of the foreign patent that corresponds to the claimed priority in the Mexican pipe-line patent.

We have to wait to see if the precedent from the First Court of Appeals in Mexico City causes the intervention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may intervene if there is a contradictory ruling from another Court of Appeals. I believe that at least the first decision of the Highest Chamber of the FCTAA allowing the extension of term of a pipe-line patent (precedent V-P-SS-629, decided on July 7, 2004) was appealed by the MPTO and a Court of Appeals had to decide based on the merits of the appeal (the statute changed in December 2005; since then, most appeals of the MPTO against the decisions of the FCTAA are dismissed).

Not everybody is allowed to demand the intervention of the Supreme Court to decide which of the contradictory decisions held by different courts of appeals is right, but the MPTO can. I hope that the MPTO, or the parties involved in the appeals, will soon demand such intervention of the Supreme Court, so we may have certainty about the validity of the term extension of Mexican pipe-line patents. (Update January 2011: Unfortunately, as a result of some formal flaws in the appeal brief that the MPTO filed against the first decision of the Highest Chamber of the FCTAA of 2004, the Federal Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal without reviewing the merits, thus the intervention of the Supreme Court, will take more time to occur, if ever).

* Jurisprudencia or binding decision VI-J-SS-40. Journal of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs, Sixth Era, Year II, No. 21, September 2009, page 27.

** Isolated precedent published in the Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation, Ninth Era, Courts of Appeals, XXXI, January 2010, page 2173.