Mexico’s Industrial Property Law has continuously adapted in order to become more effective. There is a newcause of action that may be brought against a party claiming to have an exclusive right to a patent, as provided ina decree published on June 18, 2010, which amends and adds various articles to Mexico’s Industrial PropertyLaw. The new cause of action can result in administrative penalties against parties holding patent or licenserights and file infringement proceedings in a matter in which a final, non-appealable decision was previouslyrendered. Article 213 of the mentioned law refers to this new cause of action in section XXVII, which reads:Article 213.- Administrative penalties apply:…XXVII.- When the title holder of a patent or its licensee, user or distributor, files infringementproceedings against one or more third parties, after the [Mexican Industrial Property Institute] hasruled on such matter in a previous administrative proceeding that concluded with a final judgmentruling on the inexistence of the claimed infringement…

Pursuant to the General Business Associations Law, the capital of a variable capital entity that increases due tosubsequent capital contributions or by admission of new partners, or that undergoes a decrease due to thewithdrawal of capital, can be carried out without any formalities other than those set forth in the variable capitalchapter of said law, which does not provide for the recording of such capital increases or decreases in the PublicRegistry of Commerce. In practice, various Public Registry of Commerce offices throughout Mexico reject ordeny the recording of public instruments that reflect an increase or decrease of variable capital due to a break inthe chain of entries, that is, when the sequence of entries documenting an increase and/or decrease of capital isnot clear, even when the recording of such variation of capital is not mandatory. The most recurrent argument isthat the entity’s capital reflected on the public instrument does not match the entity’s capital previously recordedin such registry. In order to resolve this issue, the Department of Economy has ruled, through its General Officeof Business Norms, that it is inappropriate to suspend or reject the recording of public instruments formalizing anincrease or decrease of the variable capital due to the lack of continuous records. Only the fixed stated capital ofa business association is required to have continuous entries recorded for each variation. In case of such denial orrejection of such recording, it is advisable to approach the officer in charge of the corresponding Public Registryof Commerce in order to discuss and resolve this matter in accordance with the Department of Economy’scriteria.