Intellectual Property Amid Tech, Nearshoring Challenges: BC&B

Q: Considering BC&B’s over 50 years of history, what has helped you stay ahead of today’s challenges?

A: Our firm was founded by a chemical engineer. Consequently, our primary clients were transnational pharmaceutical companies seeking to protect their intellectual property (IP) in Mexico, mainly patents. As our relationship with these clients grew, their needs expanded beyond patents to include other IP areas like trademarks and enforcement.

Over time, these same core clients started asking us for referrals for legal services outside of intellectual property. This client demand drove the diversification of our services. Initially, we referred non-IP matters, such as corporate, regulatory, and administrative litigation, to other firms. However, we realized that the diverse technical and legal skills within our team made us well-equipped to handle these matters. This understanding led us to strategically expand our practice areas. Adaptation and proactive listening have been key to building success over these years. 

Q: Many firms specialize in law or business consulting, but BC&B merges both under a single roof. What challenges and advantages has this dual-pronged approach presented in terms of client engagement and service execution?

A: Perhaps the primary challenge was our established reputation in IP protection. Expanding into different practices where we initially felt less comfortable was inherently risky. As we started handling cases outside of IP, we knew we could not afford to jeopardize the prestige we had built in our core practice. This led us to question if we were truly prepared to take this step. Many firms choose not to diversify for this very reason, preferring to remain specialized IP boutiques. However, we felt a desire and a need to grow beyond that.

Once the decision to expand was made, the next challenge was careful execution. Any new services offered outside our IP comfort zone must maintain the same level of quality our clients expect from our IP work. Ultimately, clients seeking these diversified services were the same ones who knew and trusted us from our IP practice.

Our clients’ needs and the business landscape in Mexico are constantly evolving, making our environment even more dynamic than before. We have learned that we must stay one step ahead, particularly for our foreign clients arriving in Mexico. Approximately 80% of our clientele is international, making the inbound scenario especially significant for our firm, more so than outbound Mexican clients, although we address that market as well.

Given the climate in Mexico, we anticipate that US companies across various sectors will consistently encounter similar issues, which typically involve specific regulatory, legal, tax, and legal certainty matters. Therefore, when these companies explore entering the Mexican market, we must already have the foundational answers prepared for what a US company typically seeks here.

This proactive approach is essential, whether clients aim to leverage nearshoring, modify supply chains, or pursue other strategic goals; we need to anticipate their expectations. The same principle holds for Asian companies, as many seek entry into the US market via Mexico. Consequently, we must also anticipate their frequently asked questions and common scenarios.

Q: What are the main concerns of Asian firms entering Mexico? 

A: Innovation matters are paramount to them. A fundamental concern for companies investing in technology relates directly to the Mexican system's reliability and effectiveness in protecting innovation and technology. Potential investors also require clarity on the ease of enforcement against third-party violations.

Beyond effectiveness, foreign companies, particularly those from Asia, frequently inquire about the system's fairness. They raise questions about potential protectionist bias, or whether foreign entities might face disadvantages or nationalist sentiments when dealing with authorities or during legal disputes. Essentially, clients seek assurance of effectiveness and equity.

Other common inquiries include security; the tax landscape, including tax benefits and double taxation; rules across municipal, state, and federal levels; and available government support. Furthermore, understanding Mexican corporate structures and governance is key for them, requiring guidance on optimal incorporation for sound operations and navigating hiring practices for locals, foreign nationals, and expatriates.

This is where our integrated commercial and legal advisory approach becomes vital. Clients often seek commercial advice on scaling, profitability, or operating in Mexico's complex environment. These goals, however, immediately trigger a need for legal counsel on incorporation, contracts, and negotiations. Consequently, commercial inquiries frequently lead to legal work.

Conversely, IP often serves as an entry point or soft landing for new entrants focused on protecting technology or incorporating their business. These initial legal steps often reveal underlying commercial strategy needs, as companies may lack sufficient market knowledge. We identify and proactively address this gap.

This creates a symbiosis where our legal and commercial advisory services mutually support each other. Thus, while our model integrates both perspectives, IP remains our core practice, driving much of our incoming work and business generation.

Q: How well prepared is the Mexican IP legal framework, especially in the context of new technologies?
A: No law, regulation, or treaty can be modified quickly enough to keep pace with the evolution of emerging technologies. Legislation occurs, but technology always moves faster, and technological challenges far outpace what current legal frameworks offer. This leads to fundamental questions about the adequacy of existing frameworks for new fields like biotechnology or artificial intelligence (AI), where issues of innovation, copyright, and image rights may not align with current legislation. Existing legal tools are often insufficient and likely cannot evolve fast enough to meet the pace of need.

Now, how effectively does Mexico comply with and observe international treaties? USMCA’s renegotiation is approaching, and IP is a fundamental component. There are many areas where Mexico may not be fully compliant, raising questions about its future stance on issues with existing legal gaps, which will likely face heightened scrutiny during renegotiation. Examples include patents and data protection, like safeguarding information used to determine drug safety and efficacy. Fully adequate handling of this data protection does not currently exist. Significant discrepancies in criteria and numerous gaps persist in these areas, which ultimately require resolution.

While these broad issues remain unresolved, our task is to provide users of the legal system with the tools needed to safeguard their rights today. Clients require practical solutions now to ensure their rights are observed and enforced in Mexican territory, irrespective of incomplete regulations, laws, or treaty compliance.

Q: Beyond providing legal advice, what steps does the firm take to address systemic issues and advocate for changes that reflect your clients' evolving needs within Mexico's legal framework?

A: A core strategy is our deep involvement in key associations and chambers. This allows us to both listen and contribute our legal experience to help shape laws, regulations, and treaties. Believing we understand clients’ needs, we view influencing policy development as essential to serving them; active presence is key to this influence.

For example, following the recent government change, we developed a National IP Agenda through a major association. Based on our experience and assessed client needs, this agenda outlined crucial IP topics and action points for systematic discussion with the new administration and relevant authorities.

The challenge now involves gaining access to authorities, such as the Mexican Institute of Intellectual Property (IMPI), the National Institute of Copyright (INDAUTOR), and the National Service on Seed Inspection and Certification (SNIC), ensuring our suggestions for progress are heard. Key agenda points include advocating for a presidential IP office. We are seeing progress, plus necessary public policies, fiscal incentives, and greater resources for IP agencies.

Active involvement remains our responsibility to influence authorities, advocating for clients based on our experience to secure necessary legal tools. We constantly work to understand evolving client needs through our multidisciplinary team. Internal feedback helps us formulate conclusions and effectively advocate for required changes or solutions.

Q: What are the main industries you want to tackle within the next five years?

A: The entertainment industry faces significant challenges due to new technologies like AI. We see our clients in this sector expressing considerable concern about the new requirements these technologies create versus the limited legal tools or answers currently available for the many questions arising. 

The pharmaceutical industry inherently faces challenges, especially concerning biotechnology and data protection for patents. We also observe many doubts and concerns within the automotive industry. However, I believe their concerns are less focused on IP and more centered on certainty regarding future tariffs, investment guarantees, and assurances. Companies question the long-term viability of establishing plants in Mexico primarily for proximity to the United States, worrying that the expected benefits might not materialize as anticipated.


Becerril, Coca & Becerril is a law firm with a team dedicated to providing comprehensive advice on numerous fields, helping clients address any challenge they may encounter.