Canada: Canadian Patent Law: 2017 Year In Review

2017 was a busy year in Canadian patent law. The contentious Promise Doctrine was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada in AstraZeneca v Apotex, the largest monetary judgment for patent infringement in Canadian history was awarded in The Dow Chemical Company v Nova Chemical, the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations and the Patent Rules were significantly amended, and Bill C-30 introduced an ability to seek patent term restoration through a "Certificate of Supplementary Protection" in certain circumstances.  

This article summarizes these and other noteworthy decisions and developments in Canadian patent law from 2017.

NOTABLE CASES AND DECISIONS

Promise Doctrine Abolished – AstraZeneca v Apotex

The Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") involved itself in matters of substantive patent law for the first time since 2012 in AstraZeneca v Apotex ("AstraZeneca"1). The SCC found that the so-called Promise Doctrine is incongruent with the Patent Act's utility requirement, and thus that it provided an incorrect basis on which to determine whether an invention met the required threshold of being "useful".

The Promise Doctrine was found to be excessively onerous for two reasons. First, it required that the standard of utility be measured as against "promise(s)" expressed in the patent in a manner that conflated the s. 2 utility requirement with the s. 27 disclosure requirement. The SCC confirmed the holding from Consolboard v MacMillan Bloedel2 that utility and disclosure are separate requirements, and that any "use" disclosed by virtue of s. 27(3) need not be demonstrated or soundly predicted in order to meet the s. 2 "utility" requirement.

Second, Rowe J., writing for a unanimous panel, found that the Promise Doctrine went beyond the scope of the Patent Act as, in situations where a patent contained multiple "promises", it required that each promise be fulfilled in order for a patent to be valid. Rowe J. found that "a single use makes a subject-matter "useful" under s. 2 of the Patent Act.

The SCC set out a new test for utility after its discussion and rejection of the Promise Doctrine. The two-part test set out by the SCC requires courts to:

  1. Identify the subject-matter of the claimed invention; and

  2. Ask whether that subject-matter is useful, in that it is capable of even a scintilla of any practical purpose that is related to the nature of the subject-matter identified in question 1.

Thus, following AstraZeneca, patents whose claimed subject-matter were demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the filing date to have any scintilla of utility connected to the subject-matter of the claimed invention will meet the s. 2 utility requirement. The SCC found the patent at issue in AstraZeneca to be useful, overturning the trial judge's finding on point (which was based on the Promise Doctrine).

Failed Attempts to Revive the Promise Doctrine – Dasatinib FCA and Desvenlafaxine

The Federal Court ("FC") and Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") were presented with arguments in separate proceedings as to the proper application of AstraZeneca following its release. In each instance, the lower courts read AstraZeneca contextually and rejected arguments that sought to revive the Promise Doctrine.

Bristol-Myers Squibb v Apotex ("Dasatinib FCA")3 was an appeal brought by Bristol-Myers after an allegation of inutility brought by Apotex succeeded before the FC in a decision pre-dating AstraZeneca.4 The claim at issue, claim 27, was to the compound known as dasatinib, which is used in the treatment of a type of leukemia. The FC found that the patent at issue made promises that dasatinib would treat a range of ailments despite the bare nature of the claim, and that these promises were not all demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the filing date.

AstraZeneca was released before the FCA issued its decision. Bristol-Myers argued that the pre-filing date demonstration that dasatinib inhibited certain enzymes in in vitro tests satisfied the scintilla threshold set out in AstraZeneca. Apotex countered by arguing that the subject-matter of claim 27 was to the potential therapeutic uses of dasatinib, and that in vitro kinase inhibition "cannot constitute a use at law" as it was only a "laboratory curiosity" and not capable of a practical purpose. The FCA disagreed, holding that the in vitro kinase inhibition was a useful discovery that met the "minimal utility requirements" put in place in AstraZeneca. Bristol-Myers succeeded on its appeal.

Pfizer v Apotex5 (Pristiq Apotex) and Pfizer v Teva6 (Pristiq Teva) were applications for orders of prohibition that were heard before but decided after AstraZeneca's release. The FC invited the parties to make submissions as to the impact of AstraZeneca following the hearing in the Pristiq matters.

The claims at issue were found to meet the s. 2 utility requirement following an application of AstraZeneca in both cases. Notably, Apotex in its supplemental submissions also argued that the patent at issue was invalid because it contained "overpromises", which Apotex argued were identified as a "mischief" in AstraZeneca that would lead to the invalidation of a patent pursuant to s. 27(3). Brown J. dismissed Apotex's interpretation of AstraZeneca, holding that its argument resembled the old Promise Doctrine. Brown J. ruled that, had the SCC intended to say that the old Promise Doctrine did not apply under s. 2 but that it could be used to invalidate patents under s. 27(3), the SCC could have stated such an intention, but that it did not.

The $644,623,550.00 Patent Infringement Judgment – Dow v Nova

There were two 2017 decisions issued in the ongoing patent dispute between The Dow Chemical Company and Nova Chemicals that related to the compensation owed to Dow by Nova's infringement of Dow's valid patent. The decisions are notable because they set a record high monetary award for patent infringement in Canada – approximately $644 million, plus interest.

In the first of these decisions7 the Court set various parameters for the parties to calculate the monetary award. Pre-patent grant "reasonable compensation" was awarded as an 8.8% reasonable royalty. Dow elected for an accounting of profits for compensation post-patent grant, and the Court found that the "full cost" method of calculating profits was more appropriate than the "differential profits" or "incremental cost" approaches given the circumstances of the particular case. Further, "springboard profits" to compensate for the infringer's artificially enlarged market share upon patent expiry were awarded to Dow for a period of 20-months post-expiry.

The parties were unable to agree on all facets of the calculation following the first decision, requiring the Court to resolve an issue relating to currency conversion and two calculations pertaining to Nova's fixed costs. The second decision8 addressed these questions and set out the final $644,623,550 plus interest award to Dow. Previously, decisions in the $100-125 million range represented the largest awards in Canadian history (Merck v Apotex, 2013 FC 751 and Lilly v Apotex, 2014 FC 1254).

FCA Considers the Law of Obviousness – BMS v Teva and Ciba Specialty Chemicals v SNF

Two FCA decisions in 2017 were notable for their comments on the obviousness test as established in Apotex v Sanofi-Synthelabo (Sanofi SCC)9.  In Sanofi SCC, a four-part test for obviousness was established, which included an inquiry into what the "inventive concept" of a claim in question is. 

In the first decision, BMS v Teva10, the FCA held that the "inventive concept" is akin to "the solution taught by the patent".  In doing so, and in acknowledging that there is a lack of clarity in the law concerning what constitutes the "inventive concept", the FCA found based on the facts of this particular case no difference between the solution taught in the patent in suit and the prior art.  The FCA also found that, in any event, had there been any difference between the prior art and the solution taught by the patent, such difference would have been bridged by the skilled person based on the common general knowledge.  Furthermore, it would have been "obvious to try" the claimed invention based on the findings that it was quickly and easily discovered and there was motivation to discover it.  Therefore, the obviousness allegation was justified.

In the second decision, Ciba Specialty Chemicals v SNF11, the FCA again addressed the question of the "inventive concept".  In this case, the FCA explicitly noted that the "'inventive concept' remains undefined", which has led to "considerable confusion [in] the law of obviousness", and invited the Supreme Court "to develop a workable definition of the inventive concept".  The FCA went on to comment in some detail regarding aspects of the four-part obviousness analysis, including what courts should be referring to at steps 3 and 4 (i.e., the "state of the art" or the "prior art", and the "common general knowledge"), and ultimately concluded the patent in suit was invalid for obviousness.  Notably, in concurring reasons, Woods J.A. disagreed with Pelletier J.A. having provided such comments on the obviousness analysis, as neither party had pleaded, raised or briefed the FCA on these issues.

Third Party Funding of Patent Litigation – Seedlings v Pfizer

In Seedlings v Pfizer12, the Federal Court was asked to approve a litigation funding agreement.  Seedlings, with the assistance of a third party funder, had sued Pfizer for patent infringement regarding a medical device.  The Court held that: (i) third party funding agreements are protected by at least litigation privilege; (ii) approval of third party funding agreements is outside the Federal Court's jurisdiction such that if approval is desired, a party should go to provincial courts; (iii) litigation funders are bound by the implied undertaking rule; and, (iv) outside of the class action context, "[t]here is no legal or logical basis to extend the requirement of pre-approval" of a funding agreement to the private litigation context.  Regarding (iv), the Court specifically noted that "the manner in which [the plaintiff] chooses to fund a litigation it has every right to bring is of no concern to the Court or to the Defendant", and "[t]he Defendant has no legitimate interest in enquiring into the reasonability, legality or validity of [the] [funding] arrangements."

Pursuing a Knowingly Unmeritorious Claim – Mediatube v Bell Canada

Mediatube Corp v Bell Canada13 was a decision in an action where Mediatube's patent was found to be valid but not infringed. It is most notable for its costs analysis. The plaintiff Mediatube, an alleged non-practicing entity, argued that it should be entitled to costs regardless of the result in the proceeding on the basis that Bell cited 753 prior art references, because Bell provided critical updates to its discovery answers on the issue of non-infringement late in the proceedings, and because Bell disparagingly referred to Mediatube as a "patent troll". Bell argued that it should be entitled to elevated costs because Mediatube dropped all of its non-infringement allegations except for those relating to stand-by utility at trial, and because Mediatube maintained a meritless claim for punitive damages that it dropped during the middle of trial.

Locke J. of the FC found that Mediatube was not entitled to its costs. In particular: (i) Bell narrowed its asserted prior art to a small subset in its expert reports, and Mediatube had no evidence that it faced unwarranted expenses as a consequence of Bell's allegation; (ii) Bell acted in good faith in providing its corrected discovery answers, and Mediatube could not have had a case for non-infringement even before the corrected discovery answers were given; and (iii) the characterization of Mediatube as a "patent troll" was not akin to a fraud allegation, and there was "no objective untruth" to the statement.

Bell was granted its costs at an elevated scale. Bell was awarded its costs plus 50% on the basis that Mediatube pursued what it should have known was an unmeritorious allegation of non-infringement. Bell was further granted solicitor-client costs in respect of Mediatube's punitive damages claim because Mediatube had the information that it needed to know that its allegation was baseless and yet it did not drop the allegation until the middle of trial.

FCA Application of the Supreme Court's Viagra Decision – Teva v Leo Pharma

Teva v Leo Pharma14 was an appeal by Teva of an order granting Leo's application for an order of prohibition in which Teva argued that the FC Judge made errors in his sound prediction and insufficiency analyses. Of note, Teva argued that the SCC changed the law of sufficiency in its 2012 Teva v Pfizer ("Viagra")15 decision when it stated that the invention was not sufficiently disclosed because the skilled reader would have to conduct a minor research project to determine which claim is the true invention.  Teva argued that this passage from the Viagra decision precluded the ability to consider the use of non-inventive trial and error experimentation in the enablement analysis.

The FCA dismissed Teva's argument. The FCA distinguished Viagra, which dealt with the failure to disclose the "invention itself", with the case at bar, where the question was whether the skilled person could put a properly disclosed invention into practice. The FCA held that the need to use trial and error experimentation "to enable the skilled person to use the invention does not render the disclosure in a patent insufficient".

Pre-grant defects do not invalidate a patent – Apotex v Pfizer

The FCA confirmed in Apotex v Pfizer16 that an accused infringer cannot rely upon pre-grant administrative errors to invalidate a patent.  In this case, the applicant had paid the incorrect final (issuance) fee, and this payment was accepted by the Patent Office such that the patent was granted.  Despite the error, the FCA took a contextual rather than literal approach to the Patent Act and found that it would be absurd to invalidate the patent on the basis of the applicant being "a few pennies short". 

Bill C-30 – The New PM(NOC) Regulations and Certificates of Supplementary Protection

The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ("CETA") was long-awaited by the IP bar and IP stakeholders in Canada due to its anticipated consequences. Patent law was most impacted by the modification of the PM(NOC) Regulations (the "New NOC Regulations") and the introduction of Certificates of Supplementary Protection ("CSPs") through amendments to the Patent Rules. The legislative schemes underlying the New NOC Regulations and CSPs were unveiled in July, 2017 and came into force on September 21, 2017. 

Changes to the PM(NOC) Regulations

CETA brought about an overhaul of the NOC Regulations. Whereas under the previous NOC Regulations section 6(1) proceedings were held to determine whether allegations of invalidity or non-infringement made in a generic's Notice of Allegation ("NOA") were justified, the New NOC Regulations provide for section 6(1) proceedings to proceed by way of actions, with viva voce witnesses and discovery rights. Some of the most noteworthy changes/outcomes of the new scheme include:

  • The relief sought is no longer an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to the second person (the generic) based on whether the allegation(s) of invalidity and/or non-infringement in the generic's NOA are justified. Rather, proceedings under the New NOC Regulations provide for final determinations of validity and infringement;
  • Patentees are now granted an automatic right of appeal should the generic succeed at the trial of the action, regardless of whether the generic's NOC has been issued;
  • As proceedings will take place via full action rather than via application, parties will be granted rights of discovery and trials will take place with viva voce testimony being provided. Thus, there will no longer be out of court cross-examinations followed by hearings based solely on transcript evidence;
  • Proceedings will still operate on a 24-month timeline, commencing upon the service of the Statement of Claim and ending upon the Court rendering a decision. Completing full actions in this timeframe will result in compressed litigation timelines. Trials are anticipated to run for approximately two weeks;
  • Any claim of a patent listed on the Patent Register can be enforced in a proceeding under the New NOC Regulations. Previously, individual claims that did not meet the listing requirements could not be asserted (e.g., process claims, kit claims);
  • The scope of recovery under section 8 may be expanded in some situations. The New NOC Regulations do not explicitly impose an end date to the period of recovery, unlike the previous legislation. Further, all plaintiffs to a litigation are to be "jointly and severally" liable, as opposed to just the first person;
  • Patentees will be required to produce a variety of documents, such as lab notebooks and research reports, as early as upon serving their statement of claim (45 days after receipt of a NOA);
  • The burden of proof for invalidity will lie on the generic in accordance with section 43(2) of the Patent Act; and
  • Patentees who do not start proceedings within 45 days of receipt of a NOA will be precluded from instituting proceedings on the same patent against the same generic in the future.

Overall, the New NOC Regulations address certain concerns with the previous scheme but will pose logistical challenges, especially in transitioning to full impeachment/infringement actions in the limited 24-month time period. A more detailed discussion of the New NOC Regulations can be found here.

Introduction of Certificates of Supplementary Protection

CETA also brought about CSPs, a means of restoring up to two years of lost patent protection for pharmaceutical products caused by delays in regulatory activities or obtaining marketing approvals.

In order to calculate the term of a CSP one must subtract five years from the approval date of the drug, and then look at the difference between this date and the filing date of the patent at issue. If the approval date less five years is later than the filing date, there may be CSP eligibility for the difference in time between this date and the patent's filing date, up to a maximum of two years. The Minister of Health can shorten this term at her discretion, for instance if the patentee delayed the process of obtaining its market authorization.

However, not all patents will be eligible for a CSP. Only patents that pertain to a medicinal ingredient or a combination of medicinal ingredients qualify. In short, the only patents that will qualify are those that claim: (i) the medicinal ingredient/combination of medicinal ingredients (the active compound(s) themselves); (ii) the active compound(s) when made by a specified process (product-by-process claims); or (iii) a use of the active compound(s) (use claims). The product/product-by-process/use claimed must relate to the drug for which the authorization for sale was issued.

Additionally, only one patent per medicinal ingredient/combination of medicinal ingredients can benefit from a CSP. Thus, in the situation where a single product is covered by, for example, separate compound and use patents, the patentee will have to select which patent it wants to benefit from the CSP. Further, a strict definition of "medicinal ingredient" is used, and CSPs will not be available to medicinal ingredients that are altered (e.g. as a different salt form, enantiomer, solvate, polymorph, ester, chelate, or in vivo or in vitro post-translational modification of the medicinal ingredient).

A more detailed discussion of CSPs and their introduction into Canadian law can be found here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/global/insights-resources/certificates-of-supplementary-protection-canada-s-new-sui-generis-patent-term-restoration-regime.

DRAFT Amendments to the Patent Rules

Significant amendments to the Patent Rules have been proposed and are expected to come into force in 2018 or 2019.  Important aspects of the amendments include the following:

  • Applications will be able to be filed "in any language" provided that the applicant subsequently files an English or French translation within two months;
  • Late filing of PCT applications into Canada (by the 42-month deadline from the earliest priority date with payment of a late fee) will no longer be as of right.  Rather, late filing by the 42-month deadline will only be permitted where an applicant additionally provides a declaration that the failure to timely enter the national phase was unintentional and a statement of reasons for the failure.  The decision as to whether to allow late entry is left to the discretion of the Commissioner of Patents;
  • Electronic filing of applications will be permitted and considered received on the actual date of receipt, even if the day is a weekend or holiday.  This amendment may prove beneficial to applicants needing to file by a certain deadline to, for example, stay within a one-year grace period for prior disclosures;
  • Requests for withdrawal of notices of allowance to allow for further substantive prosecution will be allowed, thus avoiding the approach of allowing an application to go abandoned and then reinstating;
  • Priority restoration requests will be permitted within two months of a filing date;
  • Reinstatement of abandoned applications may in certain circumstances require a demonstration of due care having been exercised;
  • Requests for examination will need to be made within three years of filing instead of the current five years from filing; and
  • Responses to office actions and notices of allowance will be shortened to four months, though in some cases may be extendible up to six months with payment of a fee and proper justification.

A more detailed discussion of the draft amendments to the Patent Rules can be found here.

Footnotes

1 2017 SCC 36, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/supreme-court-of-canada-rejects-the-promise-of-the-patent-doctrine

2 [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504

3 2017 FCA 190, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/inutility-finding-overturned-by-federal-court-of-appeal-in-first-application-of-supreme-court-s-esomeprazole-decision

4 2017 FC 296

5 2017 FC 774

6 2017 FC 777

7 2017 FC 350, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/that-s-a-wrap-springboard-profits-full-cost-accounting-and-more-from-the-federal-court-in-dow-v-nova

8 2017 FC 637, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/$644-million-patent-infringement-judgment-is-largest-in-canadian-history?utm_source=vuture&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=vuture/

9 2008 SCC 61

10 2017 FCA 76

11 2017 FCA 225

12 2017 FC 826

13 2017 FC 6, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/global/insights-resources/-high-stakes-patent-action-turned-damp-squib-

14 2017 FCA 250, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/evidence-for-establishing-sound-prediction-and-the-use-of-trial-and-error-experimentation-to-establish-an-enabling-disclosure

15 2012 SCC 60

16 2017 FCA 201, discussed here: https://gowlingwlg.com/en/canada/insights-resources/defects-in-pre-patent-issue-process-do-not-render-a-patent-void

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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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