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
 
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 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
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

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