Canada: Canadian Patent Law: 2016 Year In Review

Last Updated: January 12 2017
Article by Michael Crichton and Alex Gloor

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018

This article summarizes noteworthy Canadian patent law decisions and developments from 2016.

Notable Cases and Decisions

A wide variety of patent law issues were litigated and decided upon in 2016. For instance, the Supreme Court considered the law of utility, the Federal Court of Appeal changed the standard of review in appeals of decisions of Prothonotaries, and the Federal Court considered the situations in which a clinical trial may anticipate a claim. The following review focuses on 2016's most impactful decisions, with a primary focus on appellate decisions.

1 Esomeprazole – The Promise Doctrine is Argued before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Canada heard submissions on the controversial "promise" doctrine in 2016.1 In recent years, Canadian courts have invalidated several patents on the basis of a failure to demonstrate or soundly predict a patent's "promised" utility as of the Canadian filing date. One such situation involved Astrazeneca's '653 Patent, which had been held invalid before the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal on the basis that not all of the promised utility was demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the filing date.

On November 8, Apotex, Astrazeneca and three interveners made oral arguments regarding the promise doctrine and the validity of Astrazeneca's '653 Patent. The oral and written arguments focused on whether the promise doctrine can be maintained under Canada's Patent Act, and, more broadly, the level of utility required in order to meet the section 2 "useful" requirement under the Patent Act. Submissions were also made as to whether the inventive concept of a given claim need be coterminous with the level of utility of the same claim.2

The Supreme Court reserved judgment. A decision can be expected in early-mid 2017.

2 Hospira – Housen Replaces Aqua-Gem in Appeals from Prothonotaries

The Federal Court of Appeal's 1993 decision of Canada v Aqua-Gem3 has long dictated the standard of review of discretionary orders made by Prothonotaries. Aqua-Gem held that discretionary orders of Prothonotaries ought not to be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless (a) they are clearly wrong; or (b) they raise questions vital to the final issue of the case. When either (a) or (b) was met, a de novo review was performed on the appeal.

Hospira4 involved a five-membered panel (as opposed to the traditional three-membered panel) re-considering the Aqua-Gem standard. The Court in Hospira held that the standard enunciated in Aqua-Gem was wrong, and that the appropriate standard was that set out in the Supreme Court of Canada's Housen decision.5 The Housen standard requires questions of law to be considered on a standard of correctness, and factual conclusions of a decision-maker to be given deference and evaluated on the standard of "palpable and overriding error". By adopting Housen, the standard of review for decisions of Prothonotaries now mirrors the standard of review applied by the Court of Appeal when considering decisions of Judges of the Federal Court.

3 Venlafaxine – Appeal of Liability Finding under Section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations

Venlafaxine is a cautionary tale to litigants. In Venlafaxine,6 the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a $92 million damages award made to Teva under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations. A claim for damages requires proof that the person claiming damages "could have" and "would have" recovered the sought-after damages had the wrong not been committed. Key evidence relied on by Teva to establish that its supplier could have and would have supplied Teva with enough venlafaxine to supply the market at the relevant time was provided through hearsay.

The burden to prove its damages, including the "could have" and "would have" requirements, was said to fall squarely on Teva (the party seeking damages). It was thus confirmed that section 8 actions are no different from normal damages cases in this regard. The only evidence that Teva put forward to prove that its supplier could have and would have provided Teva with enough venlafaxine to supply the market was the hearsay evidence from a former Teva executive. This hearsay evidence was relied on by the Trial Judge to find that Teva established its loss and was thus entitled to damages. The Federal Court of Appeal held that this reliance was improper, and sent the matter back to the Federal Court for redetermination.

4 Cialis – The Relevant Date for Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Two Federal Court of Appeal decisions in 2016 dealt with the issue of obviousness-type double patenting. Cialis Mylan7 and Cialis Apotex8 were separate appeals, both pertaining to Lilly's '784 Patent covering its Cialis® product.

In Cialis Mylan the FCA provided a review of the law concerning obviousness-type double patenting. Obviousness-type double patenting was distinguished from obviousness per se. Obviousness-type double patenting was said to only consider whether the patent at issue is obvious vis-à-vis a single, earlier granted patent based on a comparison of the claims of the two patents. There is no one-year grace period for obviousness-type double patenting. By contrast, obviousness per se involves a one year grace period for information disclosed by the patentee, and a consideration of the impugned patent as compared with the entire relevant art.

Cialis Mylan and Cialis Apotex both addressed arguments from the generics that the relevant date for considering obviousness-type double patenting is the publication date of the second patent. This argument was rejected in both cases. The FCA did not go on to actually decide what the appropriate date is when considering obviousness-type double patenting.

5 Exjade – Claim Differentiation in Determining Utility

The FCA's Exjade9 decision affirmed the Celebrex10 principle that different claims can have different levels of utility. In Exjade, Teva was unsuccessful in appealing a decision of O'Reilly J.11 in which it was found that certain claims of Novartis's '951 Patent met the Patent Act'sutility requirement and other claims did not on the basis that different claims in the '951 Patent contained different promises of utility.

Teva's appeal hinged on an argument that there was a single promise of the patent that applied to every claim of the '951 Patent. However, the FCA found that the '951 Patent "expressly differentiates" between different classes of compounds (which were found in different claims). The principle of claim differentiation was applied such that the different claims were held to have different promises.

6 Aromasin – Granted NOCs on the Basis of Cross-referenced Drug Submissions

Aromasin12 was a successful appeal by Teva of a Federal Court decision which held that Health Canada had been incorrect in granting Teva its NOC on the basis of a cross-referenced submission.

Aromasin involved an interesting fact situation. Pfizer held a listed patent in respect of Aromasin. The company "GMP" sought approval for a generic version of Aromasin and served a Notice of Allegation on Pfizer. Pfizer elected not to start a prohibition proceeding against GMP, and GMP was issued a NOC by the Minister of Health for generic Aromasin. Unbeknownst to Pfizer, Teva then filed an ANDS that was cross-referenced to GMP's submission, and which did not address Pfizer's listed patent. Nonetheless, the Minister granted Teva an NOC. Pfizer brought an application before the Federal Court, and it was found that the Minister's decision to grant Teva an NOC was incorrect.

The FCA held that the Federal Court erred by applying a correctness standard in evaluating the Minister's decision to grant Teva its NOC, and that a reasonableness standard should have been applied. The FCA could not conclude that the decision of the Minister to grant the NOC was unreasonable, and the Federal Court's decision to set aside the Minister's decision to issue the NOC was set aside.

7 Ethinylestradiol and Drospirenone – Clinical Trial Does Not Anticipate

The decision of Bayer v Apotex13 addressed the issue of anticipation via clinical trial. The patentee had conducted a phase III clinical trial for its YAZ and YASMIN products more than one year before the patent at issue was filed in Canada. The participants in the trial did not sign confidentiality agreements and no restriction was imposed on participants regarding the disclosure of information concerning the tablets. However, Fothergill J. of the Federal Court found that there was no anticipation. Fothergill J. found that even if some of the patented product was made public, it would have taken ingenuity to re-engineer the invention of the patent. Thus, there was no enabling disclosure to the public. Further, the clinical trial was found to constitute necessary public experimentation, and thus fell within the experimental use exception.

The Bayer v Apotex line of cases produced a second interesting decision in 2016. As of the date of the Bayer v Apotex decision, Apotex and Cobalt had already entered the YAZ and YASMIN markets (which were covered by the patent at issue in the above-discussed action) by virtue of successful non-infringement allegations made in applications under the PM(NOC) Regulations. Bayer then succeeded in the infringement aspect of Bayer v Apotex, and thus became entitled to damages from Apotex and Cobalt. While the typical case is that a successful patentee has the right to choose between damages or, if allowed by the Court, an accounting of profits, the infringer Apotex actually asked for the reverse: it sought the right to choose between paying Bayer its damages or an accounting of profits. Apotex's position was that it only gained market entry by virtue of the Regulations, and thus that it should not be exposed to a claim for damages. This argument was rejected by the Court, who found that ability to to elect was Bayer's by right as enshrined in section 55(1) of the Patent Act.14

8 Viagra – Striking of Requested Relief in Provincial Court following Patent Invalidity

Viagra was a motion to strike elements of a claim made by Apotex.15 Apotex commenced a proceeding against Pfizer in the Ontario Superior Court seeking damages for being kept off the market by virtue of Pfizer's '446 Patent covering Viagra®. Briefly, Apotex had been unsuccessful in an application under the PM(NOC) Regulations, but then succeeded in having the '446 Patent impeached in an action. Apotex thus had no recourse to section 8 of the Regulations, and went to the Ontario Courts to claim various relief.

Apotex's claim is for relief on the basis of: a) section 8; b) unjust enrichment; c) section 7 of the Trade-marks Act; d) public and private nuisance; e) conspiracy; f) the principle in Ashby v White; and g) the English and Ontario Statute of Monopolies. Pfizer sought to strike all of the requested relief except for the Statute of Monopolies claim.

Pfizer only succeeded in striking the claims under section 8 of the Regulations and Ashby v White. As an overarching theme, Pfizer argued that the PM(NOC) Regulations constitute a "complete code" that barred other common law relief. Lederman J. rejected the notion that this conclusively disposed of matters and allowed the issues to proceed to trial.

This is one of several damages cases brought by Apotex in the Ontario Courts. While there have been numerous decisions on pleadings motions in these cases (such as this motion to strike), the cases will begin to go to trial in 2017 or 2018. Whether Apotex and other generics can expand the scope of damages that they are entitled to through recourse to the Provincial Courts is something to monitor.

Patent Agent Privilege Comes Into Force

As of June 24, 2016, certain communications between patent agents and their clients will enjoy the same protection of privilege as traditional solicitor-client communications. Pursuant to amendments to the Canadian Patent Act, communications made with the expectation of confidentiality and for the purpose of seeking or giving advice between a patent agent and his/her client are protected from forced disclosure within or outside a legal proceeding. Such privilege, which belongs to the client, may only be waived, impliedly or expressly, by the client.

Previously under Canadian law, privilege did not extend to non-lawyer agents for the simple reason that they are not members of the legal profession. This lack of privilege applied not only to communications of domestic agents, but also foreign agents where the agent's communications were relevant to a legal proceeding in Canada and notwithstanding that privilege applied to the communications in the foreign agent's jurisdiction. Under the new law, not only will Canadian agent-client communications be protected, but also the communications of foreign agents will be protected where privilege applies to the communications in the foreign agent's jurisdiction.

A key requirement for privilege to apply is that the patent agent-client communication must have been made for "the purpose of seeking or giving advice with respect to any matter relating to the protection of an invention". This requirement has yet to be interpreted by the Courts, so there is some uncertainty as to its scope. On one hand, communications related to activities such as the drafting of a patent application, or the preparation of responses to office actions, very likely fall within the scope of the new privilege. On the other hand, situations that stray closer to contentious matters may be less clear.

The new agent privilege provisions apply retroactively to communications made before June 24, 2016, provided that the communications have remained confidential through to June 24, 2016. If the communications are sought in connection with any litigation, the new provisions will only apply to actions or proceedings commenced on or following June 24, 2016.

Patent Act Changes on the Horizon as a Result of CETA

On October 31, 2016, the Canadian Parliament introduced draft legislation that would significantly change the way pharmaceutical patent disputes are litigated, and that would provide a framework for patent term extensions in certain situations for pharmaceutical patents. The draft legislation, which may receive final approval in 2017, is further to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union ("CETA").

In particular:

  1. Change in how pharmaceutical patent disputes are litigated: presently, innovators who are unsuccessful in enforcing their patent rights pursuant to the procedures of the PM(NOC) Regulations do not have any right of appeal, whereas unsuccessful generics do have a right of appeal. The draft legislation resulting from CETA contemplates replacement of the summary-type procedures of the PM(NOC) Regulations with full patent infringement actions that would involve full trials with live witnesses, final judgments on infringement and validity, and two-way rights of appeal. Specific details regarding the new procedures have yet to be disclosed; and
  2. Patent term extensions in certain situations for pharmaceutical patents: presently, regulatory-related delays suffered by an innovator seeking regulatory approval for a patented pharmaceutical product cannot be compensated for by way of any patent term extension. The draft legislation resulting from CETA contemplates providing patent term extension in certain situations by providing for the grant of a "certificate of supplementary protection". The maximum patent term extension pursuant to a certificate is two years. Only one certificate is available for a "medicinal ingredient" or combination of ingredients, and protection against accused infringers during the term of the certificate is limited to preventing making, using or selling of such ingredient(s).

Final Competition Bureau IPEGs Published

As a result of consultations conducted by the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "Bureau"), the Bureau published in 2016 a final version of its Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines ("IPEGs"). The IPEGs address how the Bureau may approach, among other things, the conduct of patent assertion entities (PAEs), conduct concerning standard essential patents (SEPs), patent settlements, and product switching.

a Patent assertion entities

The Bureau's focus vis-à-vis PAEs will be on whether demand letters alleging infringement "included representations that were false or misleading in a material respect", including the "general impression created by the notice, as well as its literal meaning". For example, if a demand letter states that others have already paid the PAE licensing fees, and that the PAE would sue the accused infringer if the demanded licensing fee was not paid immediately, but one or both of these claims were found to not be true (e.g., no prior fees have been paid, or the PAE has no intention of commencing suit), then the Bureau would be concerned that the letter contains false or misleading representations. The representations would be "material" if they "would affect the likelihood of the recipients taking some significant action in response to the claims, up to and including acceding to the demand". A wide range of remedies is available in the event of a breach, including monetary penalties in less serious cases and criminal sanctions in more serious cases.

In relation to the assignment of patent rights from a practicing entity to a PAE for enforcement purposes (e.g., privateering), the Bureau does not consider such activity to be anti-competitive.

b Standard essential patents

The final IPEGs address the following issues vis-à-vis standard essential patents:

  1. Price fixing: provided there is no price fixing among IP owners or product makers, exercise of buyer power among potential licensees, foreclosure of innovative technologies, or restriction of access to a standard, competition issues appear unlikely to arise;
  2. Patent ambush: failure by a party to disclose patents relevant to a standard and then later assertion by the party of those patents may be found to be anti-competitive unless a "legitimate business justification" exists for the failure to disclose the patents during the standard setting process;
  3. Reneging on a licensing commitment: reneging on a licensing commitment agreed to during a standard-setting process may be found to be an abuse of dominant position unless a "legitimate business justification" exists, such as a "credible efficiency or pro-competitive rationale for the conduct ... which relates to and counterbalances the anti-competitive effects and/or subjective intent of the acts"; and
  4. Seeking of injunctions: patent holders that seek injunctions after committing to license their patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms may also be found to be an abuse of dominant position, though an injunction may be appropriate "when a prospective licensee constructively refuses to negotiate" (e.g., insisting on non-FRAND terms) or "when a prospective licensee has no ability to pay damages" (e.g., licensee is in bankruptcy).

c Patent litigation settlements

Generally, settlement agreements that involve a generic launching before or upon patent expiry will not be seen as anti-competitive, though the Bureau may review the agreement if it includes a provision whereby a payment is made by the innovator to the generic. For there to be consequences in such a situation, the Bureau would need to establish that the agreement in question has had, is having or is likely to have the effect of substantially preventing or lessening competition. For example, if the payment was significantly large enough to have affected the generic's entry into the market (taking into account market value of goods, litigation costs and the innovator's section 8 damages exposure), and there were no countervailing or counterbalancing factors (e.g., notwithstanding the lessening of competition, did product selection, output or quality improve? Were there any pro-competitive rationales for the conduct?), then remedies such as prohibition orders or monetary penalties may be sought.

Criminal investigations are unlikely, unless the exclusion of the generic applies post-patent expiry, unrelated products are involved in the agreement, the parties recognize the patent rights are not enforceable (due to, e.g., invalidity or non-infringement), or the agreement is a sham.

d Product switching

Soft product switches, i.e., where an innovator's first product's patent protection is about to expire and the innovator stops promoting the first product in favour of promoting a second product that has several more years of patent protection, likely do not raise any competition law issues.

Such soft product switches are in contrast to hard product switches where the first product is completely removed from the market by the innovator and healthcare professionals have no choice but to use the second product.

Footnotes

1. Discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/supreme-court-of-canada-to-consider-law-of-utility-in-esomeprazole-appeal

2. The parties' factums and the archived webcast of the hearing can be found on the SCC website (case number 36654). Factums can be found here: http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=36654

3. [1993] 2 F.C. 425

4. Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215

5. Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33

6. Pfizer v Teva, 2016 FCA 161, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/federal-court-of-appeal-affirms-application-of-principles-of-causation-burden-of-proof-and-laws-of-evidence-to-section-8-proceedings

7. 2016 FCA 119, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/eli-lilly's-cialis®-patent-withstands-double-patenting-and-utility-challenges-on-appeal

8. 2016 FCA 267

9. Teva v Novartis¸2016 FCA 230

10. Mylan v Pfizer, 2014 FCA 250

11. Discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/federal-court-affirms-principle-of-claim-differentiation-in-evaluating-utility

12. Teva v Pfizer, 2016 FCA 248, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/federal-court-of-appeal-grants-minister-of-health-the-right-to-be-wrong

13. 2016 FC 1013, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/patent-survives-anticipation-attack-based-on-use-in-phase-iii-clinical-trial

14. Bayer v Apotex, 2016 FC 1192, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/challenge-to-patentee's-right-to-elect-between-damages-and-accounting-of-profits-rejected

15. Apotex v Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, 2016 ONSC 4966, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/global/insights-resources/portions-of-apotex's-requested-relief-for-being-kept-off-the-viagra®-market-struck?lang=en-CA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions