The Suit That Never Quite Fits: Reform and Lag in Industrial Property

There is a strange sensation when analyzing the recent reform to the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (LFPPI). It is like wearing hand-me-downs from your older siblings: it keeps you warm, it fulfills its basic function, but it never quite fits your current size. We have spent six years navigating with an inherited regulation, a normative lag that resonates in every corner of the intellectual property system in Mexico. Instead of providing the law with its own operational scaffolding and responding to contemporary realities, the decision was made to continue adjusting the suit superficially.

If we look at this reform in the light of the USMCA (TMEC), the disappointment is evident. A crucial review of the treaty is approaching, and one would expect legislative changes to address the nerve centers that our trading partners observe with a magnifying glass. Far from strengthening our negotiating position, the reform eludes the most sensitive issues. We remain on the periphery, modifying deadlines and creating new instances, when the system required a structural review to truly align it with international protection and enforcement standards.

There are, of course, some glimpses of positive "intent." The incorporation of the provisional patent application, the push for processing through electronic means, and certain procedural simplifications point toward a necessary modernization. However, these measures clash head-on with operational reality.

The reform imposes strict terms, such as a maximum of one year to resolve the granting or denial of patents once the substantive examination has begun, and five months to resolve trademark registration applications without requirements.

The problem is not aspiring to more agile procedures, but ignoring the material conditions under which they must be executed. Does the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) have the human, technical, and budgetary capacity to sustain these deadlines without sacrificing quality? Forcing speed in a limited environment is a predictable formula: faster resolutions, but potentially less solid ones.

To this is added the creation of figures of questionable priority, such as the new Specialized Technical Committee for the mandatory resolution issuance procedure. More than a structural solution, it seems like an internal pressure mechanism—an organ designed to accelerate resolutions through supervision and possible administrative responsibilities. The question is inevitable: was it necessary to add another bureaucratic layer, or was it preferable to directly strengthen the Institute's substantive capacity? The risk is clear: multiplying structures without solving the underlying problem.

The result is a reform with a balance that leaves a bittersweet taste. We have a modified law that for six years lacked its own regulation, that promised speed at the cost of legal certainty, and that, in the face of the USMCA, left the impression of a missed opportunity. On April 28, 2026, the Official Gazette of the Federation finally published the Regulation of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property. The suit, at least in its regulatory dimension, now has its fit. It remains to be seen if the stitching holds.