In addition to Industrial Property Rights known throughout the world, such as patents, utility models and industrial designs andtrademarks, commercial names, commercial notices and names of origin, the concept of industrial or trade secrets exist inMexican law as “Information of industrial or commercial application that is safeguarded by a company or individual inconfidential form that signifies the opposition or maintenance of a competitive or economic advantage against third parties incarrying out economic activities and with respect to which the owner had adapted means or sufficient systems to preserve itsconfidentiality and restrictive access to same”. Certain industrial and commercial companies have developed techniques,methods or production processes, these are forms of distribution, which signify competitive advantages against other companies,which has caused such techniques, methods or forms to be subject to a system of reservation and confidentiality that Mexicanlaw protects as legal rights. One of the requirements in order to obtain protection under Mexican law is that trade secrets must bekept confidential. Trade secrets protected by law must be contained in objective form, such as documents, electronic or magneticmedia, optical discs, microfilm, motion pictures and other similar forms. The information contained in such expressions may notbe divulged, unless the person receiving such information are required to have it in order to do their jobs and such individualsmust maintain the information they receive as confidential. Mexican law contains sanctions against the improper appropriationof industrial or trade secrets and provides for payment of damages and penalties, including criminal penalties for violators whoreveal secrets or who could benefit from illicit revelation of such information.
Capacitation is the learning process through which individuals improve their professional or technical skills, while training isunderstood as the teaching of abilities and skills. Capacitation and training have as their purpose the improvement of the generalperformance of labor. Capacitation has fallen upon the employer as an obligation and has been converted into an importantfactor of productivity. Its importance is such that the Mexican Constitution establishes an obligation on employers, in whateverthe activity may be, to provide its employees with the capacitation or training in the workplace. The Mexican Federal Labor Law(Ley Federal del Trabajo) itself contains detailed regulations for complying with this obligation, which among other purposesseeks to prevent workplace accidents. In order to comply with this obligation, employers are required to form within theiroperations missed commissions of capacitation and training that oversee the correct implementation and operation of the trainingsystem, as well as procedures that must be implemented in order to improve capacitation and training of employees. Thesecommissions, based on their mixed character must be made up of equal numbers of representatives of the employer and theemployees, who are required to meet in order to ensure compliance with and development of company capacitation and trainingprogram. The proper application of such regulation, in addition to raising productivity and improving professional and technicalcareer formation, may serve to free the employer of various legal liabilities.
The Second Chamber of Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación or SCJN) recently held incase decisions 2a./J. 28/2011, under the heading “Noncompliance As set forth in the Procurement, Leasing and Public ServicesSector Law. Against its resolution in direct amparo lawsuits may proceed.” In such decision, the Second Chamber determinedthat in opposition to a resolution that decides an award challenge an indirect amparo lawsuit can be filed being unnecessary toexercise all the ordinary remedies available under the Procurement, Leasing and Public Services Sector Law, such as the reviewremedy (recurso de revision) or the administrative procedure (juicio contencioso administrativo.) The Supreme Court of Justicedetermined that the term “may” allows to consider that the remedy is an option as to the administrative procedure, therefore, theprinciple regarding the exercise o all remedies before filing an amparo lawsuit only applies as to the administrative procedure.There is an exception to such principle, given that the Federal Administrative Procedure Law (Ley Federal del Procedimiento Contencioso Administrativo) provides more requirements to grant an injunction than those established in the Amparo Law, asresolved in prior decision 2a./J.56/2007. The decision recently approved is still pending to be published in the Federation’sJudicial Weekly publication.