China: Practice And Tendency For The Principle On Allocating The Burden Of Proof In Patent Infringement Cases In China

Generally, the principle adopted for allocating the burden of proof in a patent infringement action is that 'the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges',1 and it's the patentee who bears the burden of proof on infringement fact, compensation amount, etc.,. When there is no evidence or the evidences are not strong enough to support the patentee's allegation, the patentee shall undertake unfavorable consequences, even the risk of losing the lawsuit. 2 But for a process for the manufacture of a new product, the Patent Law explicitly stipulates that the accused infringer shall furnish proof to show that the process he used is different from the patented process, that is, the burden of proof is reversed. 3

However, in practice, it's hard for the patentee to collect evidences in many cases, for example, the infringing product cannot be got by purchase, the infringing product or method, the financial book are actually controlled by the infringer, which brings a lot of trouble for the patentee to enforce his right. Recent years, with the increasing of protection for intellectual property in China, the People's Court assigns the burden of proof reasonably for the parties based on the actual situations during the trial of the infringement cases, which lessens the burden of the patentee to some extent and plays an active role in protecting the legitimate rights of the patentee.

This article will lay out the practice and tendency of the Principle on how the burden of proof is allocated in Chinese patent infringement litigation in combination with the exemplary cases from the People's Court.

1. Applicability of the Basic Principle 'the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges'

The basic principle for allocating the burden of proof is 'the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges'. With the example of a product patent infringement, generally, the patentee is responsible for producing evidences to prove that the infringing product comes from the accused infringer, the infringing product is within the protection scope of the patent right and also evidences on the compensation amount. The proof standard here follows the high probability criterion, i.e., the fact can be determined by the People's Court if the evidence produced by even only one party can prove the fact alleged with high probability.

In an infringement dispute case for design patent, Tianjin Research Institute of Cosmetics Science and Technology Co., Ltd, Tianjin Pulanna Natural Plant Cosmetics Group Co., Ltd (Cosmetics Research Institute Co., for short) v. Tianjin Meisheng cosmetics Co., Ltd (Meisheng Co., for short), 4 the patentee the Cosmetics Research Institute Co. purchased the infringing packing box under notarization, which had the name, address, production license, sanitation license and the trademark 'Zhongxiangtang' of the Meisheng Co. thereon, and had the same inner packing of the packing box as the inner packing of the product of the 'Zhongxiangtang' pearl series advertised on its own website of Meisheng Co. Accordingly, the patentee claimed that the alleged infringing product was produced and sold by Meisheng Co. In the absence of the counter-evidence proving the accused packing box was not produced and sold by the Meisheng Co., the first instance, second instance and retrial courts decided that the infringement act of producing and selling the said infringing product by the Meisheng Co. was established.

But if the patentee cannot prove that the infringing product is from the accused infringer, he shall be responsible for his inability to produce evidences and undertake the risk of losing the lawsuit. In the dispute case for the utility model patent infringement, Beijing Jerrat Springs Damper Technology Research Center (Jerrat Center, for short) v. Beijing JZTH Buffer Technology Co., Ltd (JZTH Co., for short), 5 the patentee, Jerrat Center, obtained the infringing product from the third party and disassembled it without under notarization. Even though the patentee claimed that the infringing product was produced and sold by the JZTH Co., it couldn't be confirmed whether the product disassembled by the patentee was the one obtained from the third party due to no necessary preservation for the infringing product. Therefore, the courts of the first instance, second instance and the retrial all believed the existing evidences couldn't prove the infringing product was produced and sold by the JZTH Co., so the infringement act could not be established.

Certainly, in patent infringement lawsuits, the patentee bears the burden of proof. However, it doesn't request for a perfect evidence chain to be produced by the patentee, as long as there is a higher possibility to enable the judge to affirm the fact asserted by the patentee based on the existing evidences and in connection with the life experience and transaction practice.

2. Reversion of the Burden of Proof

Except the basic principle for allocating the burden of proof, the provisions for reversion of the burden of proof, i.e., the accused infringer should bear the burden of proof to prove ways he used are different from those of the patent holder, is applied for the patent infringement case relating to a process of the manufacture of a new product. But, applying the provisions for reversion of the burden of proof requires two preconditions, i.e., the involved patent is a method patent and the product manufactured according to the patented method is a new product. The provisions for reversion of the burden of proof may be applied only if the preliminary evidences produced by the patentee meet the two preconditions. A patent is on a manufacturing method or not, generally, can be determined by reviewing the technical solution protected by the claims. It should be noted that, for other types of method patents, such as application method, processing method, etc., the provision for reversion of the burden of proof cannot apply in the infringement litigation. As for whether the product produced according to the patented method is a new product, People's Court usually thinks that the product is not a new product if the technical solution of the product or the method for producing the product is well known to the public in domestic and/or overseas before the filling date. 6 In practice, the patentee usually entrusts a professional science technology novelty searching institution to conduct search for the novelty of a product, and the searching report can be submitted to the court as the evidence proving the product involved is a new product. It should be noted that if a patent includes a product claim and a method claim for manufacturing the product, the patentee cannot take the decision of maintaining the product claim valid made by the Patent Reexamination Board as an evidence of proving the product is a new product, and then ask for applying the reversion of the burden of proof in patent infringement litigation on the method for manufacturing the product.

In the infringement dispute case for invention patent, Dalian Great Golden Horse Infrastructure Group Co., Ltd, (the Great Golden Horse Co., for short) v. Dalian Beixing Component Hosting Transport Co., Ltd, (the Beixing Co., for short), 7 the patent involved refers to a product claim which is 'the prefabricated tip of the pre-stressed square pile' and a method claim which is 'the processing method for the prefabricated tip of the pre-stressed square pile'. The patentee, the Great Golden Horse Co., claimed that the Beixing Co. used the manufacturing method claimed in the patent involved without authorization and infringed its patent. In this case, the Great Golden Horse Co. entrusted the Dalian research institution of science and technology information to search for sci-tech novelty of the product 'the prefabricated tip of the pre-stressed square pile' and the search result showed that there was no relevant documents being retrieved disclosing the same structure as the involved patent. Because the Beixing Co. didn't produce evidences to prove the product of the patent involved was not a 'new' product during the trial, in the condition that the alleged infringing product is the same with that of the patent, the court held that "the Beixing Co shall submit the evidences which can prove the manufacturing method of the alleged infringing product is different from the method of the patent". However, the Beixing Co. didn't submit evidences to prove that its method was different from the manufacturing method of the patent in the time period for producing evidences, so it should undertake the unfavorable consequences. In the end, the court decided that the alleged infringing method for the manufacture of the product was within the protection scope of the patent involved, so the infringement was established.

3. New Tendency for Allocating the Burden of Proof

According to the existing law and regulations, only the patent infringement lawsuits referring to the manufacturing method of a new product can apply the provision for reversion of the burden of proof. But in practice, the patentees face lots of difficulties when collecting evidences in many special types of infringement lawsuits, and applying the principle of 'the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges' by rote, will result in that the rights of the patentee cannot be protected effectively, which goes against the original intention of protecting the invention and creation by the Patent Law. Therefore, in the trials of several special types of patent infringement lawsuits, the People's Court assigned the burden of proof reasonably between the right holders and the accused infringer according to the details of the case, which can be referenced by the patentee for exercising his patent right. The cases will be discussed below.

3.1 Large scale equipment type of products

If exercising the patent right based on the product claim, generally, the patentee can collect evidences by purchasing the infringing product in the market. But for the large scale equipment, there are several problems as below when collecting the evidence: first, due to the high price of the large scale equipment, millions usually, purchasing the suspected infringing product brings severe economic pressure to the patentee; second, some of large scale equipment are customized made, so it's hard to purchase it in the market via regular channels; third, the large scale equipment is usually controlled directly by the accused infringer, so the patentee can hardly get to it. Due to the existing problems described above, the patentees of such products can hardly collect the infringement evidences with the regular measures and then it's hard for them to protect their own rights.

How to solve these problems? In an infringement dispute case for invention patent, the Manfred A. A. Lupke (the Lupke, for short) v. Zhongyun Tech Co. Ltd (Zhongyun Co., for short) and Tianjin Shengxiang Plastic Pipe Co. Ltd (Shengxiang Co., for short), the patentee owns an invention patent on traveling mode, and he sued the Zhongyun Co. for infringing his patent on the traveling mode which was inside the corrugated pipe equipment used by Shengxiang Co. and manufactured and sold by Zhongyun Co. However, the traveling mode couldn't be obtained without disassembling the corrugated pipe equipment, and the corrugated pipe equipment using the traveling mode is a large- scale mechanical equipment used for manufacturing a corrugated pipe, so it's hard for the patentee to get the accused infringing product in the market via regular channels. In order to prove that the traveling mode used by the accused infringer has infringed his patent, the patentee adopted many ways to provide evidences, e.g., applying to the court for evidence preservation, and engaging the technical expert for expert opinion, and the like, he also applied to the People's Court for technical appraisal on the accused infringing product. But the manufacturer Zhongyun Co., the user Shengxiang Co. refused to provide the equipment drawings and refused the request for disassembling the equipment, so the patentee couldn't learn some technical features of the accused infringing product, which led to the infringement comparison of these technical features with those the claims of the patent involved impossible. Because this case relates to the product claim, so if strictly sticking to the basic principle of burden of proof, that is, 'the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges', the patentee failed to provide sufficient evidences to support his allegation. But according to the provision of the Regulations on Civil Action Evidence issued by Supreme People's Court, Article.75,8 the first instance and the second instance courts both believed that the alleged infringing product has infringed the patent involved based on the existing evidences, so the allegation of Lupke was tenable. The Zhongyun Co. was dissatisfied with the decision of the second instance court and applied for retrial to the Supreme People's Court. Through the trial, the Supreme People's Court believed that 'the accused infringing equipment in this case is of high price and large size, and is actually controlled by the Shengxiang Co., so there're lots of actual difficulties for Lupke to collect evidences by himself. Lupke provided the evidence materials of the relevant notarized materials, the pictures of evidence preservation by the court, and the comparison analysis opinion from technical experts, etc., which almost cover all the legitimate ways of evidence collection that can be adopted by Lupke, so he has already fulfilled his responsibility. The two accused infringers, Zhongyun Co. and the Shengxiang Co. should undertake the unfavorable consequences in the case that the patentee already provided the evidences as possible as he could and the evidences could preliminarily prove that the infringement fact is established; the two accused infringers the Zhongyun Co. and the Shengxiang Co., refused to provide the drawings of the accused infringing equipment and refused to cooperate on the identification without any justified reasons which made the identification couldn't be done ; and the accused infringers did not provide evidence to prove that the technical solution of the accused infringing equipment is different from the patent involved and doesn't fall into the protection scope of the patent involved. So according to Regulations on Civil Action Evidence issued by Supreme People's Court, Article 75, it can be inferred that Lupke's claim is tenable. The Supreme People's Court rejected the request of the Zhongyun Co. for retrial eventually.

3.2 Manufacturing method for existing product

In the infringement actions referring to a manufacturing method for product, it's hard for people to learn the specific content of the manufacturing method adopted by the accused infringer, because the manufacturing method is generally used within the enterprise of the accused infringer. We know that the regulation of reversion of the burden of proof can be applied in the infringement litigation on the patent involving the manufacturing method of a new product. But it's a bit harder to win the infringement action by collecting the precise evidences for most of the manufacturing methods for the existing products.

According to this situation, the Opinions on Trial Functions into Full Play the Role of Intellectual Property to promote development and prosperity of socialist culture and promote the coordinated development of economic autonomy Issues9 drafted by the Supreme People's Court indicates that 'in the situation that the product manufactured with the method of a patent is not new product; the patentee can prove that the accused infringer manufactures the same product, but cannot prove with reasonable efforts that the accused infringer uses the method of the patent, according the specific conditions and combining with the existing facts and daily experiences, if it can be determined that it is highly possible the accused infringing product is manufactured with the method of the patent, the patentee shall no longer be requested for further evidences, but the accused infringer shall submit the evidences to prove that its manufacturing method is different from the method of the patent in accordance with the relevant regulations of judicial interpretation on civil litigation evidence.'

In an infringement dispute case for invention patent right, Yibin Changyi Pulp Co., Ltd (Changyi Co., for short) v. Weifang Henglian Paper Pulp Co., Ltd (Henglian Co., for short), 10 the patentee, Changyi Co., who holds the invention patent of 'manufacturing method for modifying wood pup', sued the Henglian Ltd for infringing its patent with the manufacturing method of the product of the viscose wood pulp. Because the viscose wood pulp product is not a new product, so the dispute focused on how to allocate the burden of proof for parties. In the first instance, the Changyi Co., provided the evidences to prove the viscose wood pulp product manufactured by the Henglian Co. was the same as the product manufactured with the method of the patent, and applied for evidence preservation for the method producing the viscose wood pulp product which could not be done for two times due to the noncompliance of the Henglian Co. Therefore, in comprehensive consideration of the evidences provided by parties and the distance to the evidence, etc., the first instance court assigned the burden of proof about the manufacturing method of the product involved to the Hengliang Co. But the Henglian Co. refused to provide the evidence on the manufacturing method of the product involved without reasonable reasons, so the first instance court decided that the manufacturing method of the viscose wood pulp product of the accused infringer fell into the protection scope of the patent involved, and the accused infringer infringed the patent of the Changyi Co. The Henglian Co. was dissatisfied with the decision of the first instance and appealed to the second instance court, and the second instance court rejected the appeal based on the same reason. Then the Henglian Co. applied for retrial to the Supreme People's Court, which decided that 'there is no specific provision in relevant laws and judicial interpretations on the allocation of the burden of proof in the infringement dispute for invention patent on the method for the manufacture of the existing product. Generally, the usage of manufacturing method patent is shown in the process of manufacturing which refers to the process steps and technological parameters, but the specific proceeding and the data can be learned only in the manufacturing site or by checking the production record. Usually, it's hard for the patentee to access the manufacturing site and production record to get the complete evidences on the manufacturing method. So in the situation that the evidences on the manufacturing method of the product is fully controlled by the accused infringer, if simply applying the basic principle of 'the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges', which means the patentee should produce the evidence to show the manufacturing method for the same product used by the accused infringer, without analyzing the possibility of establishing patent infringement and the ability of the parties to produce evidences, it will go against with the equity principle and is not good for finding out the facts. In this case, the Changyi Co. has fulfilled his responsibility to prove the product involved was the same as the product manufactured with the method of the patent involved, and tried its best to prove the manufacturing method fell into the protection scope of the method patent involved by providing the video materials of the manufacturing site and applying for evidence preservation to the court under the condition that the manufacturing method of the patent involved is fully controlled by the Henglian Co. Even though the Henglian Co. denies ever producing and selling the product involved and claims the involved product is viscose cotton pulp different from the product manufactured with the method of the patent, there is no powerful evidence to rebut. Meanwhile, The Henglian Co. didn't cooperate with the court for the evidence preservation on the manufacturing method it controlled, which resulted in that the court could not obtain the evidence of on the alleged infringing method of manufacture. According to the said facts and daily experiences, it can be inferred that the Henglian Co. has a high possibility of infringement, so the burden of proof for the manufacturing method of the product involved could be assigned to the Henglian Co. In the case that the Henglian Co. doesn't provide effective evidences to prove the manufacturing method he used is different from the method of the patent, the Henglian Co. should undertake the unfavorable consequences. The Supreme People's Court rejected the request of the Henglian Co. eventually.

3.3 Features determined in operation state

As to the product claim, it's generally limited by structure features, but in some special cases, it can be limited by function features, effect features, method features, physical and chemical features or using state features, and the like. When comparing these non-structural technical features of the infringing product with those of the patent, these features can't be reflected by the structure of the product, so generally it's hard for the patentee to determine if the accused infringing product falls into the protection scope of the patent right before filing a lawsuit.

In an infringement dispute case for invention patent, Changshu Textile Machinery Co., Ltd (Changshu Co., for short) v. the Staubli Faverges Co., (Faverges Co., for short), 11 the Faverges Co. holds the invention patent entitled 'rotating dobby and the loop with such a dobby', and sued the Changshu Co. to the Jiangsu Province Suzhou Intermediate People's Court for the Changfang ED607 electronic dobby produced and sold by the Changshu Co. infringing its patent. The claim 1 of the patent involved includes a technical feature limiting the working state of the actuator, which is 'when said levers are engaged with said wedging surfaces, one of said lever is out of range of an actuator belong to said reading device' . In the trial of first instance, the patentee manually demonstrated the working state of the accused infringing product, and the Changshu Co. argued that the demonstration didn't show the above technical feature. The first instance court believed that for the technical feature limiting the working state, the judging of the working state of the actuator of the reader device of the accused infringing product should be done in combination with the technical solution of the alleged infringing product and the technical purpose of said technical solution. Upon verifying in court, the alleged infringing product had the same function with the function to be achieved by the patent involved and its structure was the same with the structure of the patent involved too. The accused infringer denied on that but did not provide reasonable interpretation. Therefore, it could be inferred that the alleged infringing product had the said technical feature in actual operation. The first instance court held that the alleged infringing product fell into the protection scope of the claims of the patent involved and decided the infringement was established. The Changshu Co. was dissatisfied with the decision of first instance and appealed to the Jiangsu Province Supreme People's Court (second instance count), which held that even though the working state demonstrated by of the manual operation in the first instance trial might be different from the actual working state, which was mainly in the operating speed and the load, the moving trails and the relative positions of their elements were the same, the technical features to be compared were exactly indicated by the relative positions among the elements. So it was acceptable to compare the technical features of the alleged infringing product with those of the patent involved by verifying the technical features of the alleged infringing product by way of manual operation. In addition, there were one-to-one correspondences between the elements of the alleged infringing product and the patent involved, so it could be inferred that they were basically the same in mechanical structure, function, principle, etc.,. In order to further ascertain the facts, the drawings, technical materials corresponding to the elements of the alleged infringing product could be analyzed to determine if the alleged infringing product had the said technical feature. In consideration that the relevant drawings of the alleged infringing product were controlled by the Changshu Co. who could collect the relevant evidence easily without increasing the litigation cost, so the court decided to assign the burden of proof on the design, assembling, and processing drawings of the alleged infringing product to the Changshu Co. During the time period of producing evidences, the Changshu Co. didn't submit the technical materials about the said relevant drawings and the operating range of the reading device, so it should undertake the unfavorable consequences. The second instance court decided that the alleged infringing product comprised all technical features of the patent, including the technical feature('when said levers are engaged with said wedging surfaces, one of said lever is out of range of an actuator belong to said reading device'),and thus infringed the patent.

4. Conclusion

It can be learned from the typical cases applying the provision on allocating the burden of proof, the People's Court assigns the burden of proof reasonably between the patentee and the accused infringer based on the actual conditions during the trial of the patent infringement cases, in addition to the typical cases applying the provision on reversion of the burden of proof. But anyway, the patentee should try his best to take the responsibility of the burden of proof so as to make it possible for the court to shift the burden of proof to the accused infringer. Under the conditions that the patentees are not able to get the alleged infringing product or access the alleged infringing method, they can at least take the following measures to enable the court to believe a high possibility of infringement, the measures including but not limited, applying for evidence preservation of the prosecuted product or method to the court, engaging the technical expert for expert opinion on the technical questions, and collecting relevant materials to make reasonable explanation, etc..

Footnotes

1. Law of Civil Procedure, Arc.64, Para.1 stipulates: the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims.

2.Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, Arc.2, Para. 2 stipulates: where any party cannot produce evidence or the evidences produced cannot support the facts on which the allegations are based, the party concerned that bears the burden of proof shall undertake unfavorable consequences.

3.The Law of Patent, Arc. 61 stipulates: 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 of his product is different from the patented process.

4.The Civil Judgement of Er Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 13450 (2009) by Beijing No.2 Intermediate Court, the Civil judgment of Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 1640 (2011) by Beijing High People's Court, and the Civil Ruling Paper of Min Shen Zi No. 856 (2013) by Supreme People's Court.

5.The Civil Judgment of Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 13772 (2009) by Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court, the Civil Judgment of Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 1867 (2010) by Beijing High People's Court, and Civil Ruling Paper of Min Shen Zi No. 1146 (2013) by Supreme People's Court.

6.Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes, Arc. 17 stipulates: where a product or a technical solution for manufacturing the product is known by the public in the country or abroad before the filing date of the patent, the People's Court shall determine that the product is not a new product as prescribed in Paragraph 1, Article 61 of the Patent Law.

7.The Civil Judgment of Da Min Si Chu Zi No. 23 (2011) by Liaoning Province Dalian Intimidate People's Court, and this case is selected into the 50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases by China Court 2013.

8.The Arc. 75 stipulates: where a party makes statements for its allegations but fails to provide other relevant evidences, the allegations thereof shall not be affirmed, unless the other party so affirms.

9.Opinions on Trial Functions into Full Play the Role of Intellectual Property to promote development and prosperity of socialist culture and promote the coordinated development of economic autonomy Issues9drafted by the Supreme People's Court, No.18 (2011).

10.The Civil Ruling Paper of Min Shen Zi No.309 (2013) by Supreme People's Court.

11.The Civil Ruling Paper of Su Zhi Min Zhong Zi No.0290 (2012) by Jiangsu Province Supreme People's Court.

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
Chofn Intellectual Property
 
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
Chofn Intellectual Property
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