China: Burden Of Proof In An Infringement Litigation Over A Patent For A Process Of Manufacture In China

Last Updated: 18 February 2016
Article by Xiaojun Guo

I. Introduction

Article 64(1) of the China's Civil Procedure Law (in effect Jan. 1, 2013) stipulates that, A party shall have the responsibility to provide evidence in support of its own propositions.

Article 2 of the Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures (in effect April 1, 2002) reads,

The parties concerned shall be responsible for producing evidence to prove the facts on which their own allegations are based or the facts on which the allegations of the other party are refuted.

Where any party cannot produce evidence or the evidence produced cannot support the facts on which the allegations are based, the party concerned that bears the burden of proof shall undertake unfavorable consequences.

The above provisions establish the general rule for allocation of burden of proof in China for civil procedures, that is, the rule of "he who asserts must prove".

Against any patent infringing act as stipulated in Article 11 of the Chinese Patent Law (in effect Oct. 1, 2009),1 the patent owner or a person in privity may take either administrative procedures before a local Intellectual Property Office or civil procedures before an eligible court2 , and collect generally three kinds of evidence in support of his claim against the accused infringer:

  1. Evidence that he has the standing to sue and that the patent is valid to date;
  2. Evidence that the product produced or the process used by the accused infringer falls within the scope of at least one of the claims of the patent concerned;
  3. Evidence of damages.

In practice, the plaintiff may obtain from the market an accused product under the supervision of a notary public3, which will be presented as physical evidence before the court for cross-examination. This is usually not too difficult.

Different form the scenario of a product patent, for a process patent, since there is no discovery procedure for civil proceedings in China, it is much difficult for the plaintiff to learn exactly and preserve the infringing process of manufacture without investigation on the scene, if the plagiarist doesn't present the process to public and keeps his process of manufacture underground.

The Chinese Patent Law therefore stipulates different burden of proof for a patent for a process of manufacture as an exception to the general rule of burden of proof, i.e. "he who asserts must prove" rule, which is applied to a product patent. That is, in certain conditions, the burden of proof may be shifted to the accused infringer of the asserted patent for a process of manufacture so that the accused infringer has to prove to the court that his process of manufacture is different from the claimed one. Article 61(1) of the current Chinese Patent Law reads,

Where any infringement dispute relates to a patent for invention for a process for the manufacture of a new product, any entity or individual manufacturing the identical product shall furnish proof to show that the process used in the manufacture of its or his product is different from the patented process.

See also Article 4 (1) of the Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures,

The burden of proof in tort actions shall be assumed according to the following rules:

(1) In a patent infringement action resulting from an invention patent for a process of manufacturing a new product, the entity or individual that manufactures the identical product shall bear the burden to prove that the process used is different from the patented process.

The above provisions stipulate so-called reversal of burden of proof for an invention patent for a process of manufacturing a new product.

II. Evolution of the burden of proof in an infringement litigation over a patent for a process of manufacturing a new product

"Reversal of burden of proof means that, for his own allegation of facts or rights, the plaintiff need not submit evidence of all aspects, instead, the defendant bears the burden to prove that the plaintiff's allegation doesn't stand, otherwise, the defendant has to bear the aftereffect of not submitting evidence."4 The requirements on the burden of proof in a patent infringement litigation in relation to a patent for a process of manufacturing a new product changed several times in the development of the Chinese Patent Law.

A. Absolute reversal of burden of proof

When the Chinese Patent Law was enacted in 1985, Article 60(2)of the Law reads, When any infringement dispute arises, if the patent for invention is a process for the manufacture of a product, any entity or individual manufacturing the identical product shall furnish proof of the process used in the manufacture of its or his product.

This means that, in a patent infringement litigation involving an invention patent for a process of manufacturing a product, whether the product is new or not, the defendant had the burden to offer details of his process of manufacture in order to clear the infringement claim.

This practice of absolute reversal of burden of proof to the defendant surely was favorable to patent owners. A patent owner of a process patent might abuse his patent right so as to, by frivolous litigation, preclude competition in the market or even learn competitors' trade secrets.

B. Differentiated reversal of burden of proof

In 1992, the Chinese Patent Law was amended for the first time, Article 60(2)reads, When any infringement dispute arises, if the patent for invention is a process for the manufacture of a new product, any entity or individual manufacturing the identical product shall furnish proof of the process used in the manufacture of its or his product.

That is, only when the patent concerned relates to a process for the manufacture of a new product, can the burden of proof be shifted to the accused infringer. However, this provision did not make it clear whether the accused infringer had the responsibility to prove that the process used in the manufacture of his product is different from the patented process.

In 2000, the Chinese Patent Law was amended further, Article 57(2) of this law reads, Where any infringement dispute relates to a patent for invention for a process for the manufacture of a new product, any entity or individual manufacturing the identical product shall furnish proof to show that the process used in the manufacture of its or his product is different from the patented process.

The amendment clarified that the accused infringer had the burden to prove that the process used in the manufacture of his product is different from the patented process, when the claimed invention is a process for manufacturing a new product. In the current Chinese Patent Law (in effect Oct 1, 2009), Article 61(1) corresponds to Article 57(2) of the Patent Law of 2000, and no substantial change was made.

III. Conditions for reversal of burden of proof in a patent infringement litigation over a process of manufacturing a new Product

In addition to submitting evidence to show that, he who instituted the patent infringement litigation has the standing to sue, the patent concerned is valid and not expired at the time, under the current Chinese Patent Law, three conditions shall generally be met before the burden of proof be shifted to the accused infringer in a patent infringement litigation regarding a patent for a process of manufacturing a new product.

A. What is claimed is a process of manufacture

It is clear from Article 61(1) of the Chinese Patent Law that only when the patented subject matter is related to a process of manufacture, can reversal of burden of proof be made. Said process of manufacture is different from, for example, a process of transportation, measurement, communication, or a process of a new use, which later will not trigger the reversal of burden of proof.

B. The product directly obtained from the patented process of manufacture is new

Further, the product obtained directly from the patented process shall be a new product according to Article 61(1) of the Chinese Patent Law. The underlying rationale for reversal of burden of proof when the manufactured product is new is, since the manufactured product is a new product, it is supposed that the patented process of manufacturing the new product is unique at the time, it establishes a presumption that whoever manufactures the identical product has a great possibility of having used the identical process of manufacture.

In Beijing Huaxin Biotechnology Research Institution v. Beijing Biaopuluo Pharmacy Co., Ltd., the court found that, well before the filing date of the asserted patent, products which were not obviously different from the product made by the patented process in their compositions, properties, functions had been imported into and sold in China. The court held that the product obtained from the patented process is not new and that the burden is still on the plaintiff's side to prove that the defendant used the patented process.

The court articulated that,

The "new product" of the Patent Law means, the product [obtained from the patented process] is different from the products sold in the country before the filing date of the patent, that is, the product [obtained from the patented process] is obviously different form known products of the same category in their compositions, structures, quality, properties and functions.5

Article 17 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Adjudicating Patent Infringement Disputes reads,

If a product or the technical solution for producing the product is known to the domestic or overseas public before the filing date of the patent, the People's Court shall deem that the product does not fall within the "new product" under Article 61(1) of the Patent Law.6

This provision requires a comparison between the patented technical solution with prior arts known in the country or abroad, and takes the "known to the public" test, which is stricter than the test previously taken in Huaxin case.

In ZHANG Xitian vs. CSCP Ouyi Pharmaceutical et al., the Supreme Court, applying Article 57(2) of the Patent Law of 2000, held that,

"Assessment of whether a patented process is a process of manufacturing a new product shall be based on the product directly obtained from the patented process. So called 'product directly obtained from the patented process' means, the original product made from the patented process, excluding any product obtained by subsequent processing of the original product."7

In this case, the product obtained by the patented process is a "DMSO-d6-solvate of D-tartrate salt of (S)-(-)-amlodipine" or a "DMSO-d6-solvate of L-tartrate salt of (R)-(+)-amlodipine", this is the intermediate product for producing "(S)-Amlodipine" or "(R)-Amlodipine". Since said intermediate product was not known in the country or abroad, the court held that the product manufactured by the patented process is a new product.

C. Said product made by the accused infringing process is identical with the new product obtained directly from the patented process

Also in ZHANG Xitian vs. CSCP Ouyi Pharmaceutical et al., the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, Zhang Xitian, has the burden to prove that the accused infringer produced the identical product by the accused process as that directly obtained from the patented process,

In such patent infringement dispute cases, a prerequisite for the accused infringer to bear the burden of proof that his process of manufacture is different from the patented process, is that the patent owner can prove that the product made according to the patented process is new, and that the product manufactured by the accused infringer is identical with that made according to the patented process...

The evidence submitted by Zhang Xitian is not enough to prove that the products made by Ouyi et al. are identical with the product obtained directly from the patented process. In this case, Huasheng and Ouyi don't bear the burden of proof that the process of manufacturing their products is different from the patented process.8

In this case, although the product made by the patented process is a new product, the patent owner failed to meet one of the prerequisites for reversal of burden of proof for a process patent, that is, the product made by the accused process is identical with that obtained directly from the patent process.

The above standpoint is a restatement of the court's opinion in Eli Lilly and Company vs. Jiangsu Haosen, in which the court held,

According to the Patent Law, one prerequisite for reversal of burden of proof to the accused infringer over a patented process of manufacturing a new product is, the patent owner establishes that the product manufactured by the accused process is identical with the product made by the patented process.9

IV. What if the product directly obtained from the patented process is not new

Generally speaking, for a patent for a process of manufacturing a known product, the basic rule of burden of proof still applies in an infringement litigation, that is, the plaintiff has the burden to submit evidence to establish that the accused infringer has used the patented process. Since the accused process of manufacture is under the control of the defendant and is in many times kept out of access by a third party, this makes it quite hard to learn what the process is concretely. Either for the purpose of protecting his trade secret or know how, or for the purpose of shifting or concealing the infringing act, the accused infringer will exclude any others from going to the site for investigation.

According to Article 64(2) of the Civil Procedure Law, the court can conduct investigation at its discretion in certain cases10, however, because of backlog of cases before the courts, generally judges don't have sufficient capability to make investigation upon the request of a plaintiff. Meanwhile, too much for the courts to get involved in a dispute by conducting investigation upon the request of one party might strike the judges' neutrality.

To overcome this dilemma, the Supreme Court had issued judicial opinions that,

While the product manufactured by the patented process is not new, the patent owner can prove that the accused infringer made the identical product, and that he has taken sound efforts but still could not prove that the accused infringer did take use of the patented process, according to the particular circumstances and in combination with known facts and experience in daily life, where it is affirmative that the probability that the accused identical product was manufactured by the patented process is great, the court may ... not require the patent owner to submit further evidence, instead, may require the accused infringer to submit evidence that his process of manufacture is different from the patented process.11

The case Yibing Changyi Pulp Ltd. v. Weifang Henglian Pule and Paper Ltd. and Chengdu Xinruixin Plastic Ltd., is a judicial practice of the above Opinions.

In this case, the plaintiff, Yibing Changyi, is the patent owner of invention patent "wood pulp modification production process", the product obtained by said process is not new. The patent owner had submitted evidence, such as, the gate pass for bringing cotton pulp out of the factory of the defendant, quality check list of the pulp of the defendant to show that the defendant had made and sold the accused product, and had proved by product inspection etc. that the accused products are identical with that obtained directly from the patented process; further, the plaintiff submitted videos reproducing the workshop, the relevant apparatuses of the defendant and the process of dropping raw wood pulpused by the defendant.

In addition, the court of the first instance took evidence preservation according the request of the plaintiff two times at the site of the defendant: the first evidence preservation was held back by the defendant, at the second time, the staff of the defendant took the judges of the court to the site for producing cotton pulp instead of the production site as shown on the video. The court finally didn't obtain any evidence regarding the accused process of manufacture.

Based on the above facts, the Supreme Court held that, the first and second instance courts did not err, in consideration of the evidence submitted by both sides, accessibility to the evidence, in assigning the burden of proof in relation to the accused process of manufacture to the defendant. The later shall and can fully submit evidence to show that the accused process of manufacture is different from the patented process. The defendant refused to submit evidence in relation to its process of manufacture after being ordered by the courts, it is right for the courts to therefor hold that the accused process of manufacture falls within the protection scope of the patent.

In particular, the Supreme People's Court articulated that,

Generally speaking, application of a patented process is embodied in the manufacturing process of the product. Steps and parameters taken in manufacturing the product including the particular workflow and data can only be accessed on the scene or by examining the processing records. Normally, a patent owner can not get access to the production site or processing records so as to obtain complete evidence of the [accused] process of manufacture. Where the materials relating to the accused process of manufacture are in the hands of the accused infringer, it goes against finding of facts and the principle of fairness by simply applying the rule of "who asserts must prove" and requiring the patent owner to submit evidence in relation to the process taken by the accused infringer for manufacturing the identical products, without taking into consideration the details of the case such as the probability of prevailing over the accused infringement and the ability to present evidence ... Whoever possessing the evidence has the obligation to submit said evidence for finding the fact, the allocation of burden of proof shall be based on fairness, equity and good faith, in order to find facts to the extreme extent ... For the purpose of finding facts and at the same time to ensure that the accused infringer will not be revealed of its trade secrets, so as to get a balance between the patent owner and the accused infringer, the court, based on the judicial practice, is of the opinion that, in the case that the patent owner can prove that the accused infringer has made the identical product, and that he had made reasonable efforts but still could not prove that the accused infringer did really take use of the patented process, in accordance with the particular circumstances and in combination with the known facts and experience in daily life, it is found that the probability that said identical product was made by the patented process is great, the court may ... assign the burden of proof to the accused infringer, and not require the patent owner to submit further evidence, instead require the accused infringer to submit evidence that his process of manufacture is different from the patented process.12

V. Conclusion

As discussed above, for a process patent, when the patent owner submits evidence showing that 1) he is the qualified patent owner or a person in privity having standing to sue, 2) his patent is valid, 3) his patent is related to a process of manufacture, 4) the product obtained directly from the patented process is a new product, 5) the accused infringer manufactured the identical product, the burden of proof will be shifted to the accused infringer to rebut the infringement allegation. The accused infringer shall bear the adverse consequences and may lose the case if he fails to meet the above reversed burden of proof.

To prove that the process used by the accused infringer is different from the patented process normally means that the defendant has to reveal his process of manufacture. So, it is always necessary for the defendant to rebut the "new product" and "identical product" allegations of the plaintiff. Once it becomes unavoidable for the defendant to reveal his process of manufacture to the court, it shall be kept in mind that it is not necessary for the accused infringer to reveal all steps of his process in order to rebut the infringement allegation. Instead, the defendant may reveal certain steps or conditions of his process, as long as this is sufficient to prove that he is using a different process from the patented process.

For a process of manufacturing a known product, the patent owner shall endeavor to investigate and collect evidence so that the burden of proof might be shifted to the accused infringer.

The courts carefully balance the interests of the patent owner and other competitors and endeavor to provide effective protection for process patents of manufacture, and simultaneously avoiding impeding the normal business activity of an accused infringer. It seems that the courts would rather take a more flexible approach in assigning burden of proof so that the basic principle of fairness, equity and good-faith can be met.

Footnotes

[1] Article 11(1) of the Chinese Patent Law reads, after the grant of the patent right for an invention or utility model, except where otherwise provided for in this Law, no entity or individual may, without the authorization of the patentee, exploit the patent, that is, make, use, offer to sell, sell or import the patented product, or use the patented process, and use, offer to sell, sell or import the product directly obtained by the patented process, for production or business purposes.

[2] When taking administrative procedures, the patent owner may request a local Intellectual Property Office of China to make a decision as to infringing act of the accused infringer. If the patent owner or the accused infringer is not satisfied with the decision, he may appeal the decision with the intermediate people's court. The court will then try the case according to administrative litigation procedures, wherein the Intellectual Property Office is always the defendant and shall bear the burden of proof in showing that it did not err in making the decision. The Third party, normally the party winning the case before the local Intellectual Property Office may submit evidence with the court to support the accused decision.

[3] The plaintiff may alternatively request for evidence preservation when the accused product is very big or very expensive or difficult to obtain for certain reasons.

[4] CHENG Yongshun, "Judge's Comments on Patent Dispute Cases", January 2003, page 41.

[5]Cheng Yongshun, Judge's Commentaries on Patent dispute Cases, January 2003, page 38.

[6] Judicial Interpretation No. 21 [2009] of the Supreme People's Court, in effective 1 January 2010.

[7] ZHANG Xitian vs. CSCP Ouyi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al., the Supreme People's Court, (2009) Min Ti Zi No. 84.

[8] ZHANG Xitian vs. CSCP Ouyi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al., the Supreme People's Court, (2009) Min Ti Zi No. 84.

[9] Eli Lilly (US) & Co. v. Jiangsu Province Haosen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Supreme People's Court (2009) Min San Zhong Zi No. 6.

[10] Article 64(2) of the Civil Procedure Law (in effect Jan. 1, 2013) reads, For the evidence that cannot be obtained by any parties or their litigation representatives because of some realistic reasons or for the evidence the people's court considers necessary for adjudicating the case, the people's court shall investigate and collect such evidence.

[11]See item 15 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Giving Full Play to the Functional Role of Intellectual Property Trials in Advancing the Great Development and Prosperity of Socialist Culture and Promoting Independent and Coordinated Economic Development (Supreme People's Court, Fa Fa [2011] No. 18), enacted as of Dec. 16, 2011 .

[12] Yibing Changyi Pulp Co., Ltd. v. Weifang Henglian Pule and Paper Co., Ltd. and Chengdu Xinruixin Plastic Co., Ltd, the Supreme People's Court (2013) Min Shen Zi No. 309.

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
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

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