Trade secrets protection in Latin America rests on three different regimes: Mexico’s Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (LFPPI), Decision 486 of the Andean Community for Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, and Brazil’s Industrial Property Law, which treats misuse of confidential information mainly as unfair competition and a crime. All three protect know-how without registration, but only if you can prove you kept it confidential. This guide is for European technology, AI and manufacturing companies opening a subsidiary, plant or R&D team in the region.
Key takeaways
- Mexico requires the holder to have adopted “sufficient means or systems” to preserve confidentiality; the Andean Community and the EU speak of “reasonable measures” or “reasonable steps”.
- Mexico offers an administrative route before the IMPI (Mexican Institute of Industrial Property), with provisional measures and fines, alongside federal courts and criminal complaints.
- In the Andean Community, misuse of a trade secret is an act of unfair competition; the action prescribes two years after the last unfair act unless national law says otherwise.
- Brazil protects confidential information through criminal unfair competition offences (Article 195, XI and XII) and a civil damages claim, without a statutory “reasonable measures” test.
- In all three, the evidence you build before an employee leaves decides the case.
Why trade secrets protection in Latin America needs its own plan
A European company used to Directive (EU) 2016/943 knows the three-part test: information that is secret, has commercial value because it is secret, and has been subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret. Latin American laws share the idea, which comes from the WTO TRIPS Agreement, but they differ on the wording of the measures test, on which authority hears the case and on whether criminal law does the heavy lifting. Copying your EU confidentiality policy into a Mexican, Colombian or Brazilian subsidiary is a start, not a strategy.
Mexico: industrial secrets under the LFPPI
The LFPPI, published in the Official Gazette (DOF) on 1 July 2020 and last amended on 3 April 2026, regulates “industrial secrets” in Articles 163 to 169. Article 163 defines them as industrial or commercial information kept confidential by the person with legal control over it, which gives a competitive or economic advantage, and for which that person has adopted sufficient means or systems to preserve confidentiality and restricted access. Information in the public domain, generally known or easily accessible in the relevant circles is excluded.
Three provisions matter most when staff move:
- Article 166: anyone who has access to a secret through work, employment, profession or a business relationship, and who was warned of its confidentiality, must not disclose it without consent.
- Article 167: a company that hires a current or former employee, consultant or adviser of another in order to obtain its secrets is liable, as is anyone who obtains a secret by unlawful means.
- Article 164: independent discovery, reverse engineering of a lawfully obtained product without a confidentiality obligation and good-faith acquisition are not misappropriation.
Enforcement runs on three tracks. Misappropriation is an administrative infringement (Article 386, XIV) that the IMPI can sanction with fines of up to 250,000 UMA (Mexico’s unit of measure and update) per conduct, plus daily fines and closure (Article 388); during the procedure it can order provisional measures, including cease orders and the removal of online content (Article 344). Civil and criminal disputes go to the federal courts (Article 407). Disclosure, seizure or use of a secret for gain or to cause harm is a crime under Article 402, III to VI, punishable by two to six years’ imprisonment, prosecuted only on complaint of the injured party. Article 169 obliges the authority to protect the secret during the proceedings.
The Andean Community: Decision 486
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, the members of the Andean Community (CAN), share a common industrial property regime, Decision 486 of 14 September 2000. Its Article 260 protects undisclosed information that is secret, has commercial value because it is secret, and has been subject to reasonable measures by its lawful holder to keep it secret. Article 262 lists the unfair acts: exploiting a secret accessed under a contractual or employment duty of confidentiality, disclosing it for gain or to cause harm, acquiring it by unlawful means, and exploiting it knowing it came from such acquisition. Industrial espionage, breach of contract, breach of trust and breach of a duty of loyalty all count as dishonest means.
Article 265 mirrors Mexico’s rule for employees and business partners, and Article 268 sets a two-year limitation period from the last unfair act, unless domestic law provides otherwise. Who hears the case depends on each country. In Colombia, for example, unfair competition law (Law 256 of 1996, Article 16) treats breach of secrets as unfair, and the General Code of Procedure gives the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) judicial powers over unfair competition claims (Law 1564 of 2012, Article 24). Colombian law also sets its own limitation periods: two years from knowledge of the infringer and three years from the act.
Brazil: unfair competition and criminal law
Brazil has no stand-alone trade secrets statute. Law 9,279/1996 makes it a crime of unfair competition to disclose, exploit or use without authorisation confidential knowledge, information or data usable in industry, commerce or services, accessed through a contractual or employment relationship, “even after the end of the contract” (Article 195, XI), or obtained by unlawful means or fraud (XII). Information that is public or obvious to a technician is excluded. The penalty is three months to one year of detention or a fine, and prosecution requires a private complaint (Article 199). Employers, partners and managers are covered too (Article 195, §1).
The civil route is Article 209, which preserves the right to damages for unfair competition and lets the judge order the infringement to stop before the defendant is served, with security if needed. On the employment side, breach of company secrecy is just cause for dismissal under Article 482(g) of the Consolidated Labour Laws (CLT).
Side-by-side comparison
| Issue | Mexico | Andean Community | Brazil |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main source | LFPPI, Arts. 163-169 | Decision 486, Arts. 260-269 | Law 9,279/1996, Arts. 195 and 209 |
| Measures test | “Sufficient means or systems” for confidentiality and restricted access | “Reasonable measures” to keep it secret | No express test; confidential, not public or obvious |
| Administrative route | IMPI infringement procedure, fines, provisional measures | Depends on the country (e.g. SIC in Colombia) | None specific |
| Criminal route | 2-6 years (Art. 402, III-VI), on complaint | National criminal codes | 3 months-1 year or fine, private complaint |
| Limitation | Check per action | 2 years from last act, unless national law differs | Check per action |
What this means for your business
- Map what is secret: source code, model weights, training data pipelines, formulas, supplier terms. Courts protect identified information, not “everything confidential”.
- Document the measures in each country: access controls, logs, need-to-know lists and NDAs governed by local law and in Spanish or Portuguese.
- Warn people expressly. Mexican and Andean rules turn on the person having been told the information was confidential; put it in employment contracts, onboarding and exit interviews.
- Check new hires from competitors: Article 167 of the LFPPI makes the hiring company liable.
- Decide the route before you need it: IMPI or federal courts in Mexico, the competent unfair competition authority in the Andean countries, civil and criminal action in Brazil.
If you are setting up in several countries at once, our team for trade secret protection, licensing and IP disputes can align one confidentiality framework with each local regime.
Where companies get trade secrets wrong in the region
- Relying on a group policy nobody signed locally. Without proof that the employee was warned, the case starts weak.
- Waiting until the employee has left. Evidence of downloads, access and devices must be secured while it still exists, and the CAN limitation period can be as short as two years.
- Choosing the wrong forum. Criminal complaints in Mexico and Brazil depend on the injured party acting; an administrative or civil route may be faster for an injunction.
- Ignoring licences and joint ventures. Transfers of know-how to local partners need written confidentiality and use limits, as Article 165 LFPPI and Article 264 of Decision 486 contemplate.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need to register a trade secret in Mexico, Colombia or Brazil?
No. Trade secrets are protected without registration in all three regimes, as long as the information meets the legal conditions. That is why evidence matters: you must show what the secret is, that it has value and, in Mexico and the Andean Community, that you took sufficient or reasonable measures to keep it confidential.
Can an employee who leaves use what they learned?
General skills and experience, yes. Specific confidential information, no, when the employee was warned of its confidentiality: Article 166 LFPPI and Article 265 of Decision 486 say so expressly, and Brazil’s Article 195, XI applies even after the contract ends. The line between skill and secret is where most disputes are fought.
Is the IMPI route faster than going to court in Mexico?
It can be useful because the IMPI can order provisional measures during the infringement procedure and impose fines, while damages can be claimed once the infringement is declared. Whether it suits your case depends on the evidence, the urgency and whether you also need criminal action or federal court remedies.
Can IP Global Guard handle a trade secret issue in Latin America?
Yes. We review your confidentiality framework against Mexican, Andean and Brazilian law, prepare the evidence and coordinate qualified local correspondents for IMPI, SIC, court or criminal proceedings, with a single point of contact from Europe and one billing relationship for the whole region.
How IP Global Guard helps protect your know-how in Latin America
Know-how is often the most valuable asset a European company takes to Latin America and the hardest to recover once it walks out of the door. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, works across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa with one strategy and one billing relationship, and the wider group also advises on the EU AI Act and data protection when trade secrets meet AI systems.
Tell us which countries you are entering, what information you need to protect and who will have access to it. We will review your contracts and measures and set out the route in each country if something goes wrong. Ask our team to review your trade secret set-up.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the law at its publication date.
Sources
- Chamber of Deputies (Mexico), Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (DOF 1 July 2020, last amended 3 April 2026)
- WIPO Lex, Andean Community Decision 486, Common Industrial Property Regime (14 September 2000)
- Andean Community, Who we are (member countries)
- Presidency of Brazil, Law 9,279 of 14 May 1996 (Industrial Property Law)
- Presidency of Brazil, Consolidated Labour Laws (Decree-Law 5,452 of 1 May 1943)
- Senate of Colombia, Law 256 of 1996 on unfair competition
- Senate of Colombia, Law 1564 of 2012 (General Code of Procedure)
- Directive (EU) 2016/943 on trade secrets, Article 2 (8 June 2016)
