MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Heidi Lindner and Humberto Vega, Arochi & Lindner
of response. The law does not detail the timelines for carrying out the notification. Despite this, under the supplementary norms regarding administrative pro ‑ cedures, it is required that the notification be clear, precise and within a reasonable timeframe, allowing
• the petitioner of the stay provides sufficient guar ‑ antee to respond to the damages that this measure may cause to the affected party. The LFPPI also provides the possibility for the alleged infringer to obtain the lifting of a preliminary injunction as long as the following requirements are met. • A counter-guarantee is offered to respond to the damages that could be caused to the patentee by lifting the preliminary injunction. The “quantum” or amount of this counter-guarantee depends on several factors, such as the economic value of the dispute, the possible damage to the patentee, and other circumstances pertinent to the case. However, in practice, to obtain the lifting of the measure, the alleged infringer usually provides a counter-guarantee equal to the amount guaranteed by the petitioner of the measures, plus at least an additional 40%. This percentage originates from what was established in the now-repealed Indus ‑ trial Property Law. Therefore, although the new LFPPI does not specify a particular “quantum” for the counter-guarantee, in practice, it continues to be used and is commonly accepted by the IMPI. • The alleged infringer can demonstrate an appear ‑ ance of good right (fumus boni iuris). • The impact of the preliminary injunction is greater than what could have been caused to the person who requested it. • Public order and general interest are not affected. 5.2 Final Injunctive Relief Enforcement of a Final Injunction Final injunctions become enforceable when they are served to the defendant. However, as mentioned in 5.1 Preliminary Injunctive Relief , the LFPPI does not explicitly detail timelines for carrying out the notifi ‑ cation. Despite this, following supplementary norms regarding administrative procedures, it is required that the notification be clear, precise, and within a reason ‑ able timeframe that allows the defendant to respond adequately. There is no specific procedure to enforce final injunc ‑ tions as such. However, their execution must follow the guidelines set by the IMPI within the resolution. This may include actions such as the withdrawal of
the defendant to respond adequately. Scope of a Preliminary Injunction
The scope of a preliminary injunction can vary. It may include the withdrawal of products from the market, and the suspension of services or commercial activi ‑ ties, among others, depending on the nature of the infringement, the plaintiff’s request and the measures effectively imposed. The deadlines for the execution of these measures may vary depending on the specific case and the complexity of the measures ordered. The LFPPI does not specify a fixed amount for the guarantee that an applicant must provide when seek ‑ ing injunctive relief. Instead, the applicant initially sets the amount unilaterally, based on the specifics of the case and potential damages that the measure might inflict on the opposing party. However, if the elements presented by the applicant or those arising from the case file suggest that the guarantee is significantly insufficient, the IMPI has the authority to order an increase in this amount. Moreover, for a preliminary injunction to remain effec ‑ tive, the patentee is required to file a main action. The LFPPI mandates that if the applicant does not file the corresponding infringement action within 20 business days – counting from the day after the measure is executed – the applicant will be deemed liable for any damages incurred by the person against whom the measures were implemented. Suspension or Lifting of a Preliminary Injunction In Mexico, a preliminary injunction can be suspended (stayed) via an Amparo suit before the federal district courts. However, this suspension is subject to the fol ‑ lowing requirements: • the applicant to the stay must be able to demon ‑ strate that the preliminary injunction is causing irreparable harm; • the stay of the preliminary injunction does not con ‑ travene public order or social interest; and
138 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook