Argentina Patent System

Argentina has a significant technology sector — Buenos Aires is consistently ranked as one of Latin America's top tech startup hubs (alongside São Paulo and Bogotá). Key Argentine tech companies with patent portfolios or IP strategies: Mercado Libre (Buenos Aires — Latin America's largest e-commerce and fintech platform; Nasdaq-listed; holds patents in payment processing, e-commerce logistics, credit scoring algorithms, anti-fraud systems; files primarily at the USPTO and via PCT for major markets); Globant (Luxembourg holding, Buenos Aires operations — software and IT services; holds patents in agile development platforms, AI-based quality testing, and software delivery automation); Auth0 (acquired by Okta 2021, Buenos Aires-founded — identity authentication; Okta now holds the Auth0 patent portfolio). Argentine software patent landscape: software 'as such' is not patentable in Argentina (Art. 6(h) Law 24.481 excludes 'computer programs'). Argentine courts and INPI have applied this exclusion strictly — standalone software inventions are rejected. However, software embedded in hardware systems or software producing a technical industrial application beyond the computer itself may be patentable. Argentine INPI follows a narrow technical-effect approach. Argentine technology companies typically file software patents primarily in the US (USPTO) where protection is stronger, and in the EU (EPO) for European markets.

Argentina is a founding member of MERCOSUR (Mercado Común del Sur, Southern Common Market — established by the Treaty of Asunción 1991, effective 1995), which includes Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay (Venezuela suspended). MERCOSUR IP harmonization: MERCOSUR has attempted but made limited progress on IP harmonization. There is no MERCOSUR-wide patent or 'MERCOSUR patent' equivalent to the European Patent. Each MERCOSUR member maintains its own national patent system — Argentine patents from INPI, Brazilian patents from INPI Brazil (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial — a separate institution from Argentine INPI despite the same acronym), etc. PCT is the practical coordination mechanism: most applicants seeking protection in Argentina and other MERCOSUR countries file via the PCT, entering national phase separately in each jurisdiction. The Pacific Alliance (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru) has made somewhat more IP harmonization progress through its framework agreements. TRIPS compliance: Argentina, Brazil, and other MERCOSUR states are WTO members and must comply with TRIPS. Argentina's pharmaceutical guidelines operate within the TRIPS framework (Argentina's position: TRIPS Art. 27 allows member states to define patentability criteria). US and EU trade pressure: the US Trade Representative (USTR) has historically placed Argentina on the TRIPS Special 301 Priority Watch List for its IP practices, particularly the pharmaceutical guidelines and enforcement levels for copyright and trademark. This creates bilateral trade tension but has not fundamentally changed Argentine pharmaceutical patent policy.

Argentina uses restrictive pharmaceutical patent examination guidelines to maximize public access to medicines, reflecting a deliberate policy choice consistent with but more restrictive than TRIPS minimum requirements. The primary instrument is the 2012 Joint Examination Guidelines on Patentability of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Inventions, issued jointly by INPI, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Industry. Under these guidelines, the following are NOT patentable in Argentina absent proof of enhanced therapeutic efficacy: (1) New polymorphs: different crystalline or amorphous forms of a known active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). Polymorphs often have different bioavailability and stability properties, but Argentina requires that the polymorph provide better therapeutic efficacy — improved absorption, increased drug exposure, or reduced side effects that translate to better patient outcomes; (2) New salts, esters, and derivatives: chemical modifications of known APIs that do not constitute a genuinely new API. Only if the salt/ester demonstrates enhanced therapeutic efficacy compared to the known API can it be patented; (3) New formulations: new pharmaceutical compositions, drug delivery systems, or dosage forms of known APIs. Even a novel nanoparticle formulation or liposomal delivery system of a known drug would not be patentable unless it provides better therapeutic outcomes; (4) New combinations: combining two known drugs into a fixed-dose combination product is not patentable absent synergistic therapeutic efficacy; (5) New indications/second uses: new medical indications for known drugs. This is one of the most contested areas — many courts globally (EPO, UK, Germany) allow Swiss-type claims for second medical uses; Argentina generally does not. These guidelines significantly limit pharmaceutical 'evergreening' strategies. Generic drug companies benefit from this policy — Argentine patients access generic versions of drugs more quickly than in countries with stronger pharmaceutical patent protection.

Yes. Argentine Patent Law 24.481 (Articles 42–55) provides for compulsory licensing (licencias obligatorias) of patents in several circumstances: (1) Non-working: if a patent is not 'worked' in Argentina — meaning the patented invention is not manufactured or otherwise exploited in Argentina — within 3 years from the grant of the patent (or 4 years from the filing date, whichever is later), any person may request a compulsory license to work the invention. The patent holder can rebut the non-working claim by demonstrating working in another country combined with importation into Argentina, or by showing justified grounds for non-working. 'Working' in Argentina requires local commercial exploitation, not just importing the patented product; (2) Dependent patents: if a second patent cannot be worked without licensing a first patent, and the second patent represents a significant technical advance over the first, a compulsory license on the first patent may be granted for the purpose of working the second; (3) Public interest, national emergency, anti-competitive practices: compulsory licenses can be granted for public interest or national emergency reasons, or to remedy anti-competitive behavior by the patent holder; (4) Argentina has declared the working requirement: Argentina's non-working compulsory licensing provision is one of its most aggressive TRIPS flexibility exercises — many pharmaceutical patents that are worked globally but produced outside Argentina have been subject to compulsory license requests, creating commercial pressure on pharmaceutical patent holders to either manufacture locally or establish local licensing arrangements. Argentina has not widely issued compulsory licenses in practice (threats and negotiations have often resolved before formal issuance), but the legal mechanism exists and is used as leverage.

Argentina has a 1-year grace period under Article 6 of Patent Law 24.481. The Argentine grace period works as follows: (1) Covered: disclosures made BY the applicant or inventor — including publications, conference presentations, product demonstrations, sales, or other public disclosures — that occurred within 12 months before the Argentine patent filing date (or PCT priority date). These disclosures are not treated as destroying novelty for the Argentine application. This is similar to the US AIA § 102(b)(1) grace period for the applicant's own disclosures; (2) NOT covered: independent third-party disclosures. If an independent party published the same invention before the Argentine filing date, that disclosure constitutes prior art against the Argentine application, even if within the 12-month window. The grace period protects only against the applicant's own prior disclosures; (3) Grace period vs. EPC: unlike the EPC (which has no grace period — strict absolute novelty), Argentina provides this one-year window. This makes Argentina more accommodating of academic researchers and inventors who publish before patenting; (4) Grace period and PCT: if an applicant files a PCT application and then enters the Argentine national phase within 30 months from priority, the Argentine grace period is measured from the PCT filing date (or the priority date if claimed). Disclosures between the priority date and the Argentine national phase entry that were made by the applicant do not defeat Argentine novelty, provided they occurred within 12 months of the Argentine filing date; (5) Practical implication: Argentine inventors and companies with international operations should still file before public disclosure to preserve rights in EPC countries (which have no grace period). Relying solely on the Argentine grace period risks losing European patent rights.

Argentina's biotechnology patent landscape has several distinctive features shaped by its history as a major agricultural biotechnology adopter (particularly transgenic soybean cultivation) and its robust public research system: (1) Biotechnology patentability: DNA sequences, genes, and genetic material of natural origin are NOT patentable in Argentina. However, the following ARE patentable: modified (non-naturally occurring) DNA sequences with demonstrated industrial application; recombinant proteins and biopharmaceuticals; biotechnology processes (fermentation processes, genetic engineering methods); transgenic microorganisms and animals (though plant varieties are protected separately under plant variety rights, not patents — Argentina is a UPOV 1978 member). Pharmaceutical biotech: recombinant biopharmaceuticals (monoclonal antibodies, biologics) face the same stringent examination standard as small-molecule drugs — enhanced efficacy required for new formulations, new dosage forms, etc. Biosimilar pathways in Argentina are regulated by ANMAT under Resolution 7075/2011; (2) Agricultural biotech (GMO) IP: Argentina's GMO crop system is governed separately through the Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca (SAGyP) regulatory approval — biosafety approvals for transgenic events are required before commercialization. The IP for transgenic events (specific genetic constructs) is typically protected through a combination of plant variety rights (Sistema de Semillas, Law 20.247) and patents (for the genetic construct). The Roundup Ready soybean disputes illustrate the complexity: Monsanto's RR gene construct could be patented (as a modified gene), but the soybean variety containing it is protected under plant variety rights in Argentina; (3) CONICET and public R&D IP: CONICET researchers hold Argentine and international patents in biotechnology, biopharmaceuticals, and agricultural biotech. Technology transfer from CONICET to the private sector is managed through the Argentine Technology Transfer Law (Law 23.877) and CONICET's technology transfer office.

For most technology companies, Argentina is NOT the primary patent filing jurisdiction — but it may be worth strategic consideration depending on market position and commercial goals. Key considerations: (1) Software patent limitations: Argentine Patent Law 24.481 Art. 6(h) explicitly excludes 'computer programs' from patentability. INPI applies this exclusion broadly, rejecting software inventions that are not tightly integrated with hardware and producing a technical industrial effect. US software patents under Alice are already restrictive, but Argentine software patent practice is generally more restrictive. This makes Argentina a weak jurisdiction for software patent enforcement; (2) Market size and enforcement context: Argentina's 45+ million consumer market is significant for Latin America, but IP enforcement has historically been inconsistent. INPI has limited examiner resources, prosecution timelines are long (3–10+ years), and judicial enforcement through Argentine IP courts can be slow relative to US or European standards; (3) When Argentina filings make sense: (a) for multinational companies with significant local operations or manufacturing in Argentina (pharmaceutical companies with Argentine production, agricultural biotech companies with Argentine distribution); (b) for technology companies actively commercializing in Argentina where competitor copying is a specific risk; (c) as part of a MERCOSUR/Latin America portfolio alongside Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Chile; (4) Recommended approach: for most technology companies, file PCT → enter US, EU (EPO), China, Japan, Korea as primary jurisdictions. Selectively enter Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico national phases based on commercial priority. Do NOT assume that Argentine patent protection will be equivalent in scope or ease of enforcement to USPTO-granted patents.