UK: Revised Rules Of Procedure For The Boards Of Appeal Of The European Patent Office To Come Into Force On 1 January 2020

Last Updated: 2 August 2019
Article by Donald McNab

In a meeting of its Administrative Council on 26 and 27 June, the European Patent Office (EPO) approved new Rules of Procedure for its Boards of Appeal (RPBA), which will come into force on 1 January 2020 (“RPBA 2020”).  This approval comes after a consultation process, which saw 140 comments made on a first draft and a conference held in Munich in December 2018 to discuss a second draft, amendment of which has led directly to the RBPA that will now come into force.  Although the full effect of these rules on practice before the EPO, not only in appeals but probably also in first instance proceedings, will only become clear once these rules have come into effect, it is generally understood that the new rules are likely to be more burdensome on parties than the existing rules and we recommend that cases presently on appeal at the EPO, or which may be the subject of appeals, be reviewed as soon as possible in case potentially beneficial action may be taken before the new rules come into effect.

The EPO’s Boards of Appeal have exclusive jurisdiction to decide upon appeals against so-called first instance decisions handed down by other departments of the EPO, for example decisions in oppositions to granted European patents and decisions refusing European patent applications.  The RPBA are binding upon the Boards, “provided that they do not lead to a situation which would be incompatible with the spirit and purpose of the [European Patent] Convention” (Article 23 RPBA, unamended). 

The existing RPBA have been in force since 2007 and the extensive revisions to these are part of a suite of reforms affecting the Boards of Appeal that have recently been implemented.  These reforms included moving the physical base of the Boards to Haar, a town towards the east of the greater Munich area, and electing an independent president.  These changes were intended to strengthen the independence and authority of the Boards.  The stated aims in changing the RPBA, on the other hand, are to increase efficiency and predictability and to harmonise decisions between boards, without any decrease in quality. 

The RPBA 2020 were discussed at a major seminar organised by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) on 22 July in London, attended by more than 100 people, and addressed both by European patent attorneys as well as an EPO Board of Appeal member and a first instance EPO representative responsible for a centralised opposition team.

So what is changing?  Along with a large number of non-substantive amendments to the RPBA to improve the clarity and consistency of the rules and to make them gender neutral (for example by introducing “Chair”), there are many more significant substantive changes, which we now discuss, focusing on what we believe to be the most significant changes.

Introduction of a three-stage “convergent approach” to a party’s appeal case

The concept of a convergent approach to an appeal case lies at the heart of RPBA 2020, and has been the subject of much comment, including at the CIPA seminar on 22 July. 

In the present RPBA, which remain in force until the new rules come into effect, no mention is made about appeal proceedings being based on the decision being appealed or on the minutes of any hearing (so-called Oral Proceedings) that may have taken place before issuance of that decision.  Now, as well as appeal proceedings (obviously) being based on: 

  • a party’s notice of appeal and its substantive case;
  • any reply if more than one party is involved; and
  • any communication issued by the Board inviting the filing of observations and observations filed in reply to such communications,

 explicit mention is now made of appeal proceedings being based on:

  • the decision appealed; and
  • the minutes of any Oral Proceedings (Article 12(1), RPBA 2020). 

Moreover, a general definition of the nature and scope of the appeal proceedings is now provided:

“In view of the primary object of the appeal proceedings to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner, a party’s appeal case shall be directed to the requests, facts, objections, arguments and evidence on which the decision under appeal was based” (Article 12(2), RPBA 2020).

Whilst this is intended to be in accordance with established case law, it is this judicial manner to the review of first instance decisions, which concerns both points of law and points of fact, which provides the context for the new convergent approach: the philosophy behind the new rules is that they are intended to apply to any amendments to a party’s case, as it progresses to and through an appeal, and to provide for any amendments to become increasingly difficult to introduce.

First stage of the convergent approach

The convergent approach begins with the party’s appeal case as it is defined in Article 12(2) RPBA 2020 (see above), i.e. from the moment the appeal is filed.  It is now prescribed that:

“Any part of a party’s appeal case which does not meet the requirements in paragraph 2 is to be regarded as an amendment, unless the party demonstrates that this part was admittedly raised and maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal.  Any such amendment may be admitted only at the discretion of the Board” (except from Article 12(4), RPBA 2020).

The explanatory notes accompanying RPBA 2020 make clear that the revisions to Article 12(4) are intended to change practice: explicit reference is made to this first level of the convergent approach “reversing the approach of current Article 12, paragraph 4” and to state that not everything presented at the outset of the appeal proceedings now being automatically included in them.  Generally speaking, existing Article 12(4) RPBA provides that everything presented by a party in its substantive case, any reply of another party and any reply to a communication from the Board shall be taken into account by the Board, without prejudice to the power of the Board to hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which could have been presented or were not admitted in the first instance proceedings.

The change in Article 12(4) was the subject of discussion at the CIPA seminar.  One contributor suggested that, presently, everything is “in” an appeal except where there is a reason not to admit something whereas, in future, because the convergent approach is to begin right at the start of the appeal process, something may not be “in” unless it was in at first Instance (since, otherwise, that thing will be regarded as an amendment the admissibility of which is discretionary).  Depending on how you look at it, this is a change in emphasis or a change in practice. 

The remainder of new Article 12(4) RPBA requires a party to clearly identify any “amendment” and provide reasons for submitting it in the appeal (i.e. why it was not submitted before the appeal) and, where the amendment concerns a patent or application, to give basis for the amendment and provide “reasons why the amendment overcomes the objections raised”.  In response, factors the Board shall consider when exercising its discretion on whether to admit such amendments are their complexity, their suitability to address the issues which led to the decision under appeal, and the need for procedural economy.

New subparagraphs 5 and 6 of RPBA 2020 specify additional criteria for admissibility: Article 12(5) provides Boards with discretion not to admit any part of a party’s substantive case (either its grounds of appeal or a reply to such grounds) which is not considered to contain a party’s complete appeal case, or to be clear or concise, or to specify material (to be filed inits annexes) relied upon.  Article 12(6) generally gives Boards discretion not to admit requests, facts, objections or evidence which were not admitted, or which should have been submitted or which were no longer maintained, in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal.

So the message seems clear: anything a party – whether an applicant, a patent owner or an opponent – wishes to have considered by a Board of Appeal should in future be part of the pre-appeal proceedings.  Otherwise, reliance on such things in appeal proceedings cannot be guaranteed.

Second and third stages of the convergent approach

Where Article 12(4) RPBA 2020 specifies generally what is to be regarded as an amendment to a party’s appeal case, Article 13(1) and (2) RPBA 2020 are specifically concerned with amendments made after a party has filed its grounds of appeal or replied to another party’s grounds.  Article 13(1) is concerned with the period between the filing of an appeal (and any reply to such an appeal) and either the issuance of Summons to attend Oral Proceedings or a communication from a Board inviting the filing of observations.  Article 13(2) is concerned with amendments made either after the issuance of Summons or a communication from the board inviting the filing of observations.  Together, these implement the second and third stages of the convergent approach.

As with the first stage, admissibility of amendments is discretionary, but the factors Boards are to consider when exercising their discretion become ever more stringent.  Amongst other things, for example, Article 13(1) stipulates that discretion should be exercised in view of the context of current state of proceedings (and so requires the state of proceedings to play a role in determining admissibility of an amendment rather than merely requiring reasons to be given for submitting an amendment in the appeal proceedings); and whether an amendment is detrimental to procedural economy (Article 12(4) simply referring to the need for procedural economy).  Most significantly perhaps, Article 13(1) also requires that, where an amendment concerns a specification (whether an application or a granted patent), the party requesting the amendment has to demonstrate that, prima facie, it overcomes the issues raised by another party in the appeal proceedings or by the Board and does not give rise to new objections.  It has been remarked that this last factor implies that a party seeking to amend at this stage in the proceedings is being asked to prove a negative, always an onerous task.

Article 13(2) RPBA is concerned with the third stage of the convergent approach, and provides that an amendment “shall, in principle, not be taken into account unless there are exceptional circumstances, which have been justified with cogent reasons by the party concerned”.

Transitional provisions

Although RPBA 2020 will, in general, apply not only to appeals filed after 1 January but also those pending on that day (Article 25(1), RPBA 2020), there are some saving provisions to mitigate parties being disadvantaged by this.  Firstly, for grounds of appeal or replies to grounds of appeal filed before 1 January 2020, neither the first level of the convergent approach (Article 12(4), RPBA 2020) nor Article 12(5) and (6) RPBA 2020 will apply to such grounds or replies.  Instead existing Article 12(4) will apply.  These provisions are discussed above.  Secondly where a Summons or communication from a Board requiring a party to respond has been notified before 1 January 2020, the second level of the convergent approach (Article 13(2), RPBA 2020, also discussed above) will not apply.  Instead, the existing requirements concerning admittance and consideration of amendments to parties’ cases will apply.

Changes to rule on remittal of cases

Before considering possible changes in practice that may result from the convergent approach set out in RPBA 2020, it is appropriate to consider a very significant change to the rule in the RPBA defining the circumstances under which Boards may remit cases for further prosecution.  Under Article 111(1) EPC, a Board of Appeal, following examination as to an appeal’s allowability, can exercise any power within the competence of the department responsible for the decision appealed, or remit the case to that department for further prosecution.  In opposition proceedings, for example, patents may be revoked without consideration of all grounds of opposition that an opponent may have argued.  For example, the claims of an opposed patent may be found to contain added subject-matter and the patent as granted found to be bad for this reason, without an Opposition Division ever considering anything an opponent might have submitted in relation to other grounds of opposition (for example lack of novelty or lack of inventive step).  If a Board on appeal reverses an Opposition Division’s finding of added subject-matter, it is quite common for such a case to be remitted for further prosecution, rather than a Board itself to consider and decide upon such substantive issues.

The possibility of remittal provided for in Article 111(1) EPC is the subject of Article 11 RPBA, the current version of which merely provides that remittal must occur if fundamental deficiencies are apparent in the first instance proceedings (unless special reasons present themselves for doing otherwise).  The emphasis in Article 11 RPBA 2020 is completely different:

“The Board shall not remit the case to the department whose decision was appealed for further prosecution, unless special reasons present themselves for doing so.  As a rule, fundamental deficiencies which are apparent in the proceedings before that department constitute such special
reasons” (Article 11, RPBA 2020).

Moreover, the explanatory remarks accompanying RPBA 2020 state that the aim of new Article 11:

“is to reduce the likelihood of a “ping-pong” between the Boards and the departments of first instance, and consequent undue prolongation of the entire proceedings before the EPO.  When exercising its
discretion under Article 111 EPC, the board should take account of this aim” (Explanatory note to Article 11, RPBA 2020, revised draft);


“Whether “special reasons” present themselves is to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  If all issues can be decided without undue burden, a Board should normally not remit the case” (Explanatory note to Article 11, RPBA 2020, revised draft);


“As a consequence of the convergent approach now implemented in proposed Articles 12 and 13, it is to be expected that more issues will be raised and dealt with in the proceedings at first instance, thereby reducing the need to remit cases”.

It is therefore clear that changes are on the horizon in relation to consideration of remittal after 1 January 2020.

Consideration of the convergent approach and changes to remittal in RPBA 2020

As mentioned above, when discussing the first stage of the convergent approach, a party is clearly going to be on the back foot as soon as he or she attempts to introduce something not considered at first instance.  The more advanced an appeal is, the greater the difficulty achieving admissibility is likely to be.  Accordingly, a message seems clear: the more comprehensive its submissions at first Instance are, the less likely that a party will need to rely upon the discretion of a Board to admit an amendment according to the new convergent approach. 

The inevitable corollary of the new convergent approach is that first instance proceedings, notably, but not only Oral Proceedings in opposition cases, will become more involved.  Indeed, this appears to be explicitly anticipated in the third comment quoted above from the explanatory notes concerning the change to Article 11 RPBA.

There was considerable discussion at the CIPA seminar on whether the practice of the Boards of Appeal in relation to remittal will change after 1 January 2020.  There seemed to be consensus amongst the panel presenting that the “special reasons” required by new Article 11 will include more than simply fundamental deficiencies in the first instance proceedings.  However, it seems that the true scope of “special reasons” will only become clear over time.  In the meantime, the existing dilemma faced by appellants – how much to address issues in a case that are not the subject of the appealed decision? – appears to be made worse by the change to Article 11 RPBA: it would be a confident  (or foolhardy) European patent attorney who does not spend considerable time preparing for all matters that may be discussed by a Board at Oral Proceedings.

As regards the intimation in the EPO’s explanatory notes about it being expected that more issues will be raised and dealt with at first Instance, a panel member at the CIPA seminar remarked that she can’t see that as very practical.  The panel member’s point seems very reasonable: opposition proceedings, particularly Oral Proceedings at which most decisions are ultimately reached, are complicated and frequently lengthy enough without expecting an already busy Opposition Division to convene a discussion and reach a view on the merits of other grounds of opposition, once a given set of claims may have been found to be bad because of another ground, or one line of argument under the same ground.

The EPO attendee speaking on behalf of the departments of first Instance indicated that, for its part, it does indeed expect an increased number of so-called auxiliary requests to be presented by parties at first instance.  Without explaining in detail how, she indicated that “these will be dealt with efficiently and fairly, balancing the interests of the parties and the public on the efficiency of the procedure”.  Another point made was that DG1 (since 2017 responsible for the entire procedure from filing to granting and opposition) will consistently insist on a convergent approach by the Proprietor when amending the claims.  There were murmurs from some in the audience at the CIPA seminar at this point: a requirement for convergency of amendments at first instance is perhaps not universally accepted as a requirement for the structure of auxiliary requests presented at first Instance.

The bottom line to all of this is great uncertainty: it will remain to be seen whether the introduction of the convergent approach achieves one of the stated purposes of the revision of the RPBA as a whole: to increase efficiency.  Will this be at the risk of first instance proceedings becoming more inefficient?  Or, even if more involved first instance proceedings are not to be regarded as inefficient, does the capacity exist at first instance for its Oral Proceedings to become more involved?  The DG1 representative at the CIPA seminar explicitly indicated that the legal framework is considered to provide the necessary tools to deal with any possible change of behaviour by the parties.  Only time will tell as to how these tools will be wielded.

Other changes

Whilst emphasis and discussion in this article has so far been focused on the introduction of the convergent approach and the changes to the rule in the RPBA on admissibility, there are a slew of other changes to the RPBA which should not go unnoticed.  These are briefly discussed now:

Introduction of a “list of lies”

Joking, the Board of Appeal representative at the CIPA seminar referred to new Article 1(2) as providing for a list of lies.  This new provision requires that, each year, a list of cases will be drawn up and published, on which Boards are likely to hold Oral Proceedings or issue written decisions on, or issue communications seeking responses from parties.  The list of lies comment derives from the fact that this list will be provisional, since developments in the handling of appeals will inevitably affect
these predictions.  Nevertheless, the list is likely to be of some assistance to parties.

Up to two months’ extension available, exceptionally, for responding to a statement of grounds of appeal

In the drafts of RPBA 2020, it had been proposed that potential respondents would be prevented from requesting extensions to the four-month period for responding to an appellant’s statement of grounds of appeal.  Presently, extensions of time may exceptionally be allowed at the Boards’ discretion.  In a change to the drafts of RPBA 2020, this will remain the case.  However, it is now specified that the four-month period may only be extended, exceptionally, up to a maximum of six months.

Acceleration of appeal proceedings

The possibility of requesting acceleration of appeal proceedings is now explicitly referred to in the RPBA.  However, broadly the same provisions were previously provided for in a 2008 Notice published in the EPO’s Official Journal.  No significant change in practice is therefore anticipated.

Mandatory written communications to issue from Boards before Oral Proceedings

It is now specified in the RPBA 2020 that four months’ notice must be given of the date of Oral Proceedings (whilst Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 reads that the Board shall “endeavour to give at least four months notice of the summons [sic]” it is clear that what is meant is that the Board shall endeavour to give at least four months notice of Oral Proceedings).

More significantly, Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 now requires Boards to issue communications drawing attention to matters that seem to be of particular significance for the decision to be taken.  This was previously only an option open to Boards and will be welcomed by parties preparing for Oral Proceedings.  Whilst these communications may accompany summons, they need not do so, but Boards are to endeavour to issue them at least four months in advance of Oral Proceedings.  It is still not a requirement for Boards to issue preliminary opinions, although the possibility of doing so is now explicitly specified in RPBA 2020.

Changing the date fixed for Oral Proceedings

Provisions that were previously set out in a Notice published in the EPO’s Official Journal are now included within the RPBA.  There are only a few substantive changes that have been made when doing so.  Parties still need “serious reasons” when requesting a postponement of a Hearing and the non-exhaustive list of “serious reasons” is essentially unchanged,.  Any serious reason given in a request to change the date must relate to the representative, if a party is represented.  Notably, however, if that representative has a prearranged serious reason that prevents him or her from attending Oral Proceedings, this should now, on its own, be sufficient for Oral Proceedings to be rescheduled, since it is no longer a requirement to explain why another representative could not stand in for the one prevented from attending.  Since representatives generally have expended considerable time and effort on a case by the time Proceedings are convened, this development will no doubt be welcomed

Further changes

There are still further changes that will come into effect on 1 January 2020, which we have not discussed.  These include the possibility for Boards to issue decisions in which the reasons are given in abridged form or partially abridged form; and timescales for Boards to issue decisions.  Additionally, if a Board’s rapporteur is asked to do so by the Board’s Chair, (s)he will assess whether or not more than one appeal should be handled together or whether any appeals should be taken out of turn, seemingly for reasons of overall procedural economy.

Conclusions and suggestions

Whilst the effect of the new rules will only be seen with the passage of time, the general consensus is that, particularly the changes concerned with amendments to parties’ cases, the new rules will make amending cases at the appeal stage still more difficult.  Accordingly, anyone involved in a pending appeal – whether an appellant or a respondent – would be well advised to consider whether it might be sensible to make any additional submissions now, in order to try to benefit from the possibly greater flexibility to do so under the existing rules.

Likewise, particularly if amendments to a case may be advantageous as part of an appeal yet to be filed, or in response yet-to-be-filed response to an already-filed appeal, it may well be sensible to file a submission before 1 January 2020, even if the appeal or the response is not due until later.

Given that RPBA 2020 will apply to appeals filed in respect of many cases currently at first instance now, such as pending oppositions and indeed pending applications, it would be at the very least sensible to review these as well, particularly opposition files, in case additional submissions may be beneficially made.  More generally, presenting as complete a case as possible at first instance is likely to become ever more important, starting now! 

Lastly, in view of the future importance of decisions from first instance proceedings on appeal proceedings, not to mention that of the minutes of any first instance Oral Proceedings, these (both decisions and minutes) will need to be considered to a greater extent than before, to minimise the possibility that subject-matter presented on appeal may be regarded as an amendment, which could potentially be inadmissible.

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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