Insights

Mexico’s reform of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property brings a procedural issue into sharper focus: IMPI will have statutory maximum time limits for several key proceedings, including patent substantive examination, trademark registration, oppositions and renewals. Where those limits are exceeded, the authority must explain the reasons. For applicants, the main gain is not only speed. It is a clearer administrative timetable in a jurisdiction where waiting periods have often been difficult to plan around.

The reform will not, by itself, remove backlogs or guarantee identical timing across all cases. It does, however, give companies a better basis for managing filing calendars, prosecution responses, renewal budgets and opposition monitoring in Mexico. A practical note follows from this: applicants should keep closer records of procedural milestones and be ready to ask why a case has stalled. The real test will be whether the new limits are matched by transparent status information and enough examination capacity inside IMPI.

Canada’s patent term adjustment (PTA) regime is now a practical post-grant issue for patent owners. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has opened the route for requesting additional patent term where statutory conditions are met, including for patents granted after 1 December 2025. Because the request period is generally tied to a three-month deadline from grant, the first wave of deadline management will become visible in March 2026.

The change deserves attention, but not every Canadian patent will justify a PTA request. Owners should first check whether the relevant delay is attributable to the Office, whether applicant-side delay reduces the possible adjustment, and whether the likely extra term has real commercial value. For portfolios in pharmaceuticals, communications, materials and other long-tail technologies, early screening of Canadian grants after December 2025 is sensible. For lower-value cases, PTA may be a cost decision rather than an automatic filing step.

US enforcement around “Made in America” and “Made in USA” claims is becoming harder to treat as a routine advertising issue. Following the White House’s March executive order, the FTC has sharpened its attention on misleading origin claims, while the USPTO context also points to closer scrutiny where such language appears in marks, product descriptions and brand messaging. The practical risk is simple: a patriotic phrase can become a compliance problem if the manufacturing facts do not support it.

Companies using US-origin claims should review them before they reach trademark filings, packaging, websites or marketplace listings. Absolute statements are particularly exposed where materials, components or substantial processing come from outside the United States. A safer approach is to keep evidence for sourcing and assembly, avoid broad claims that overstate US contribution, and use more precise wording when only part of the production process takes place in the United States.

The 2026 edition of the EPO Guidelines for Examination has been in force since 1 April. By May, the new text is no longer a future reference point; it is now shaping drafting, prosecution timing and responses to examination communications. For European patent applicants, the practical impact is concentrated in a few areas: responsibility for AI-assisted drafting, the end of accelerated search under PACE, the novelty effect of product disclosures, and the way claims are interpreted in light of the description and drawings.

These changes matter at the level of filing decisions. Using AI tools does not reduce the applicant’s ultimate responsibility for the content and compliance of submitted documents. Applicants seeking an early search report also need to rethink strategies that previously relied on PACE for accelerated search. With G 1/23 and G 1/24 now reflected in the Guidelines, product launches, samples, definitions in the description and claim wording all need closer coordination before filing.

The German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) has put digital technologies back at the centre of the patent debate. Its recent trend analysis shows continued growth in patent applications linked to digital key technologies, with particularly visible movement in computer technology, audiovisual technology and related fields. Within those categories, generative AI, machine learning, virtual modelling and industrial digital twins are becoming harder to separate from one another.

The point is not simply that more AI-related applications are being filed. The more practical issue is that DPMA’s approach to computer-implemented and AI-related inventions keeps drawing attention to “technical character”. Applicants seeking protection in Germany for generative AI or digital twin inventions will need to show more than model capability, business usefulness or data value. The application should explain the technical problem, the technical means used and the technical effect that can be assessed in examination.

With the 1 July 2026 Phase II start date approaching, EUIPO has issued transitional guidance on the EU design reform package, giving applicants a clearer route through the changeover in terminology, filing practice and procedural handling. The former registered Community design, commonly known as the RCD, will formally move into the new name and framework of the registered EU design, or REUD.

The most practical change is the removal of the Locarno class restriction for multiple design applications. Under the old approach, designs included in the same multiple application generally had to fall within the same Locarno class. Under the new framework, a company may place a watch in Class 10 and a bracelet in Class 11 within the same multiple application. For businesses managing wearables, accessories, packaging, digital interfaces and physical product shapes as one launch package, this is not a cosmetic reform. It can change filing lists, budget allocation and disclosure timing.