United States: For Whom The Bell Trolls, Episode II: The Judiciary Strikes Back

Patent reform legislation continues to be hotly debated, both in the public arena and before Congress. Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall R. Rader recently said that Congress should leave reform to the courts, echoing comments by former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Paul Michel and Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley. But business interests continue to press for action by Congress, consistent with efforts by the Executive branch and agencies to curb litigation abuse. While legislation continues to move forward (as summarized below), it remains unclear which (if any) of the proposals will be put to a vote, or in what form. Given the support of business, the Executive branch, various agencies, and various legislators, however, legislative action seems likely, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the judiciary.

THE JUDICIARY WEIGHS IN

On November 1, during a keynote address to the Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference, Chief Judge Rader urged Congress to refrain from passing legislation aimed at curbing litigation abuse by patent trolls. Judge Rader seemed to recognize that the patent system currently faces a crisis in confidence, driven in part by patent trolls attempting to obtain settlements based on the cost of defense, rather than the merits. Judge Rader nonetheless indicated that he does not support a legislative solution, instead believing that judges are best-equipped to recognize and address litigation abuse. Judge Rader identified three ways in which the courts can address litigation abuse: (1) increased use of summary judgment to dispose of meritless cases; (2) increased discretion for district judges to determine which cases are "exceptional" and thus warrant an award of fees; and (3) decreased litigation costs, which provide the leverage for much litigation abuse.

A transcript of Judge Rader's speech is available at: http://www.fedcirbar.org/olc/filelib/LVFC/cpages/9008/Library/Rader%202013%20ED%20Tex%20BB%20Speech.pdf Judge Rader's statements are consistent with opinions recently expressed by other members of the judiciary, including Judge Michel and Judge O'Malley. On October 9, Judge Michel asserted that "Congress can't micromanage litigation effectively," and expressed concerns that many of the proposed litigation reforms would weaken the patent system and interfere with judicial discretion. He reiterated his concerns early this week during his keynote speech at Fordham Law School's IP Summit, urging lawyers to speak out to stop the proposed bills from becoming law and expressing support "for smart patent reform by litigators who understand how the patent system works, not by congressional staffers and lobbyists." A few months earlier, on September 17, Judge O'Malley had gone even further, asserting that the proposed legislation could violate the constitutional separation of powers, by encroaching on the authority of judges to manage their dockets. Just days ago (on November 19), two Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee (Representatives Conyers and Watt) expressed similar concerns, stating that they opposed legislation that would "encroach on the independence of the federal judiciary."

A transcript of Judge O'Malley's speech is available at: http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IPO-Annual-Meeting-Keynote-Speech-09-17-13.pdf

BUSINESS WEIGHS IN

Despite the concerns expressed by the judiciary, various venture capitalists and businesses continue to lobby for legislation. For example, in a November 6 letter to Congress, venture capitalists endorsed several measures to protect startups from frivolous lawsuits, including (1) limiting the scope of discovery to prevent patent assertion entities from using litigation costs to leverage settlements; (2) requiring plaintiffs to pay defendants legal fees in connection with baseless suits; and (3) tightening pleading requirements for patent complaints. Similarly, during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on November 7, venture capitalists called for rules requiring patent licensing demand letters to include more information about how the patents-at-issue are allegedly infringed.

Like these venture capitalists, a broad coalition of businesses (including Amazon and Google) supports patent legislation reform. In a July 30 letter, the coalition urged Congress to expand the Covered Business Method (CBM) program of the America Invents Act (AIA) to include all business method patents, rather than just those related to financial services, thereby increasing the number of patents subject to additional review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

Not all businesses, however, support reform. For example, some companies with a large number of patents (such as IBM and Qualcomm) have expressed concerns regarding legislative proposals that might make it easier to invalidate patents held by entities that are not patent trolls or otherwise engaged in litigation abuse.

AGENCIES WEIGH IN

The PTO's Acting Director, Teresa Stanek Rea, has expressed support for patent reform legislation that would (1) make patent ownership information more transparent; (2) allow courts to award attorneys' fees in "exceptional" cases; and (3) expand the AIA's CBM program. And the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on September 27 that, to help combat litigation abuse, it will begin an investigation of patent trolls. The probe will include the issuance of subpoenas to twenty-five patent assertion entities seeking data about their operations, to develop a better understanding of how patent assertion entities impact innovation and competition.

CURRENT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Since our last survey of legislative proposals and related developments (available at: http://www.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/130612-Summary-Patent-Initiatives.pdf), several new patent reform bills have been introduced, including the Patent Transparency and Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 1720), the Patent Litigation Integrity Act (S. 1612), the Innovation Act (H.R. 3309), the Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents Act (H.R. 2766), the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 (H.R. 2655), and the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act (H.R. 2639).

1. The Patent Transparency and Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 1720)

  • Introduced: November 18, 2013, in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D−VT).
  • Key provisions:
    • Real party-in-interest. Provisions in the bill would require disclosure of real party-in-interest information in litigation and to the PTO within three months after assignment.
    • Customer suits. The bill allows patent infringement suits against customers to be stayed while the manufacturer litigates.
    • Post-grant review. The bill eliminates the AIA provision barring a post-grant-review petitioner from later asserting in a civil action that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner "reasonably could have raised" during post-grant review. The bill also requires the PTO to use district-court claim construction in post-grant review and inter partes review proceedings.
    • Bad-faith demand letters. The bill defines the sending of fraudulent or materially misleading demand letters in connection with the assertion of a patent as an unfair and deceptive trade practice under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
    • Double patenting. The bill codifies the doctrine of double patenting for first-inventor-to-file patents.
    • Bankruptcy protection. Provisions in the bill bar a bankruptcy trustee from terminating certain licenses, and hold the bankruptcy trustee to any contractual obligation to monitor and control the quality of a licensed product or service. Provisions also add trademarks to the definition of "intellectual property" in Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
  • Status: The Patent Transparency and Improvement Act of 2013 is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Senators Mike Lee (R−UT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D−RI). The White House has also signaled its support for the Senate legislation. Gene Sperling, director of President Obama's National Economic Council, stated on November 18, 2013 that the bill is "a big step in the right direction."
  • Available at: http://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/patent-transparency-and-improvements-act-of-2013

2. The Patent Litigation Integrity Act (S. 1612)

  • Introduced: October 30, 2013, in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Orrin Hatch (R−UT).
  • Key provisions: The stated purpose of the Patent Litigation Integrity Act is to lower economic incentives for bringing frivolous patent suits through fee-shifting.
    • Attorneys' fees. Provisions in the bill would require courts to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party absent a showing that the non-prevailing party's position was "substantially justified" or there are special circumstances that would make an award unjust. The bill would also allow defendants to file a motion requiring plaintiffs to post bonds covering fee awards.
  • Status: The Patent Litigation Integrity Act is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on October 30, 2013.
  • Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s1612is/pdf/BILLS-113s1612is.pdf

3. The Innovation Act (H.R. 3309)

  • Introduced: October 23, 2013, by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R−VA), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It was co-sponsored at introduction by Representatives Spencer Bachus (R−AL), Jason Chaffetz (R−UT), Howard Coble (R−NC), Peter DeFazio (D−OR), Anna Eshoo (D−CA), Blake Farenthold (R−TX), George Holding (R−NC), Zoe Lofgren (D−CA), Tom Marino (R−PA), and Lamar Smith (R−TX).
  • Key provisions: The proposed bill combines a variety of proposed amendments to the U.S. Patent Act — several of which have been proposed in prior bills — into a comprehensive legislative proposal.
    • Real party-in-interest. Provisions in the bill require that parties asserting patents disclose to the court, the defendant, and the PTO all entities having a financial interest in the asserted patents, as well as the asserting party's ultimate parent company and any entity having enforcement rights on the patents. The bill also imposes an ongoing duty of disclosure to the PTO if changes to previously disclosed information occur.
    • Discovery. The bill seeks to limit discovery prior to Markman hearings to information relevant to claim construction, and includes provisions allowing judges to make additional rulings to stage discovery as they see fit. Parties would be required to pay their own document production costs, but parties requesting irrelevant materials would also have to pay the opposing party's production costs.
    • Joinder. The bill would change procedural joinder requirements to allow defendants to join any "interested party" to the case. "Interested party" is defined as any assignee, entity with a right to sublicense, or entity with a direct financial interest in the asserted patent. Exceptions include attorneys representing parties or entities with an equity interest but no influence over the action. The provisions also would not apply if the party to be joined is not subject to service of process, if joinder would deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, or if joinder would create improper venue.
    • Customer suits. Provisions in the bill seek to address the practice employed by some patent assertion entities of suing a product's end users for using an allegedly infringing product. When a manufacturer intervenes in a case, a court would be required to stay an action brought against an end user if certain requirements are met.
    • Pleading. The proposal would require all plaintiffs in patent suits to disclose which claims are being infringed, and to specify which products are allegedly infringing and on what grounds. It would also require a plaintiff to describe its principal business and demonstrate its right to assert the patent.
    • Attorneys' fees. The bill would require courts to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party absent a showing that the non-prevailing party's position and conduct were "substantially justified" or there are special circumstances making an award unjust. Fees would be recoverable from all parties having a financial interest in the suit, rather than only those parties with an ownership interest in the patent.
    • Covered business methods. The AIA's CBM program permits parties charged with infringing a CBM patent to initiate a review proceeding at the PTO in which the validity of the patent may be challenged. Originally, the Innovation Act would have eliminated the program's current 2020 expiration date, and codified the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) decision interpreting CBM patents to include those claiming inventions incidental to financial service. Representative Bob Goodlatte announced on November 18, however, that he would remove provisions to expand the AIA's CBM program.

4. The Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents Act (the STOP Act) (H.R. 2766)

  • Introduced: July 22, 2013, by Representatives Darrell E. Issa (R−CA) and Judy Chu (D−CA).
  • Key provisions:
    • Covered business methods. The purpose of the bill is to expand CBM Review at the PTO. The provisions relating to covered business methods are nearly identical to those in the Patent Quality Improvement Act (S. 866), discussed above.
  • Status: The STOP Act was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee on September 13, 2013. It is co-sponsored by Representatives Jared Huffman (D−CA), Betty McCollum (D−MN), and Jason Chaffetz (R−UT).
  • Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2766ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr2766ih.pdf

5. Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 (H.R. 2655)

  • Introduced: July 11, 2013, in the House Judiciary Committee by Representative Lamar Smith (R−TX).
  • Key provisions: Although not a patent-specific bill, if enacted, the legislation could have a substantial impact on patent cases.
    • Sanctions. Provisions in the bill amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) by essentially making sanctions mandatory for violations of Rule 11(b) certifications. In addition, the amendment would mandate that any sanctions compensate reasonable expenses of the opposing party and permit additional monetary and non-monetary sanctions as appropriate.
  • Status: The House of Representatives passed the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 on November 14, 2013. The bill now moves to the Senate for considerations. It is co-sponsored by Representatives Jason Chaffetz (R−UT), Blake Farenthold (R−TX), Trent Franks (R−AZ), Bob Goodlatte (R−VA), George Holding (R−NC), Jim Jordan (R−OH), and Tom Marino (R−PA).
  • Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2655eh/pdf/BILLS-113hr2655eh.pdf

6. Patent Litigation and Innovation Act (H.R. 2639)

  • Introduced: June 10, 2013, in the House Judiciary Committee by Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D−NY).
  • Key provisions:
    • Real party-in-interest. These requirements are similar to those proposed under the Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) and the Patent Abuse Reduction Act (S. 1013). The Patent Litigation and Innovation Act, however, does not require parties to disclose prior or pending litigation.
    • Discovery. The bill would allow courts to stay discovery until they have ruled on motions to dismiss, motions to transfer venue, and claim construction issues. The bill also allows courts to expand discovery in extraordinary circumstances.
    • Customer suits. This provision is similar to the one in the Innovation Act (H.R. 3309), discussed above. The principal distinction is that the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act covers not only consumers, but also entities that either resell or redistribute patented articles.
    • Joinder. This provision of the bill is similar to the joinder provision in the Innovation Act (H.R. 3309), discussed above, though it does not define the term "interested party." It also requires parties to file a motion for joinder within 120 days of the first complaint, answer, or counterclaim.
  • Sanctions. Provisions in the bill provide patent litigation defendants with additional protection by making it easier for judges to award sanctions for abusive litigation. Judges would be required to apply greater scrutiny in their analyses under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to include specific findings in the record as to abusive practices that take place during trial. The bill also requires judges to enforce these sanctions against noncompliant attorneys and their respective clients.

7. The Patent Abuse Reduction Act (S. 1013)

  • Introduced: May 22, 2013, in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator John Cornyn (R−TX).
  • Key provisions: The legislation would make procedural changes to several aspects of patent litigation. Many of the proposed changes, including those related to real party-in-interest information, discovery, attorneys' fees, and joinder, have been incorporated in the Innovation Act (H.R. 3309).
  • Status: The Patent Abuse Reduction Act was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 22, 2013. It is co-sponsored by Senator Charles Grassley (R−IA).
  • Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s1013is/pdf/BILLS-113s1013is.pdf

8. The End Anonymous Patents Act (H.R. 2024)

  • Introduced: May 16, 2013, by Representative Theodore E. Deutch (D−FL).
  • Key provisions: The purpose of the bill is to add transparency to the patent system by requiring parties to report patent transfers and real party-in-interest information.
    • Real party-in-interest. The bill requires the Director of the PTO to develop regulations relating to the disclosure of each entity having the legal right to enforce a patent, its ultimate parent entity, and any entity having a controlling interest in the enforcement of a patent. Such disclosures would be required of patent applicants upon the issuance of a new patent, payment of maintenance fees, and transfer of existing patents.
  • Status: The End Anonymous Patents Act was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee on June 14, 2013.
  • Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2024ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr2024ih.pdf

9. The Patent Quality Improvement Act (S. 866)

  • Introduced: May 6, 2013, by Senator Charles E. Schumer (D−NY).
  • Key provisions:
    • Covered business methods. The bill amends the AIA by making permanent a temporary provision allowing the PTO to review a patent after it has been granted. It also expands the scope of covered business method patents eligible for post-grant review, from business method patents related to "financial services" to all business method patents.
  • Status: The Patent Quality Improvement Act was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 6, 2013.
  • Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s866is/pdf/BILLS-113s866is.pdf

10. The Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act (the SHIELD Act) (H.R. 845)

  • Introduced: August 1, 2012, by Representatives Peter DeFazio (D−OR) and Jason Chaffetz (R−UT). A second draft was introduced on February 27, 2013.
  • Key provisions: The SHIELD Act focuses on fee shifting.
    • Attorneys' fees. The bill modifies the current fee-shifting provision, under which fee-shifting is limited to "exceptional" cases. It allows a defendant to file a motion to determine whether the plaintiff asserting a patent is an inventor or assignee of the asserted patent, a university or university-affiliated technology transfer association, or a party that has otherwise made a substantial investment in the patent. If the plaintiff is determined by the court not to meet one of these conditions, it must post bond in an amount calculated to cover the recovery of costs by the defendant.
  • Status: The SHIELD Act was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee on April 8, 2013. It is co-sponsored by Representatives Kerry Bentivolio (R−MI), Tim Walberg (R−MI), and Peter Welch (D−VT).
  • Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr845ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr845ih.pdf

11. White House Recommendations

On June 4, 2013, the White House outlined seven recommended legislative actions and issued five executive actions intended to "increase clarity and level the playing field for innovators."

  • Many of the legislative recommendations are already reflected in the proposed bills circulating in Congress, including:
    • Real party-in-interest. The document recommends legislation that requires any party sending demand letters, filing an infringement suit, or seeking PTO review of a patent file, to update patent ownership information with the PTO. It also recommends legislation that enables the PTO or district courts to impose sanctions for noncompliance.
  • Demand letter disclosure. The document recommends that legislative incentives be created to have patent demand letters filed publicly in a manner that is accessible to and searchable by the public.
    • Attorneys' fees. The document recommends "providing district courts with more discretion to award attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 as a sanction for abusive court filings."
    • Customer suits. The document recommends legislation protecting consumers and businesses from infringement suits for the use of "off-the-shelf" products. It also recommends that such suits be stayed when an infringement suit has been brought against the product manufacturer.
    • ITC standards. The document recommends legislation adjusting the International Trade Commission (ITC) standard for obtaining an injunction to be consistent with the standard set by the Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange.
    • Covered business methods. The document recommends expanding the AIA's CBM program to "include a broader category of computer-enabled patents and permit a wider range of challengers to petition for review of issued patents before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)."
  • The executive actions differ significantly in their scope and the processes required for implementation. Of the five executive actions, four were tasked to the PTO. The PTO has posted a draft "2014–2018 Strategic Plan," which incorporates the Administration's executive actions, and is accepting comments and feedback until November 25, 2013.
    • Making "real party-in-interest" the new default. The PTO will begin a rulemaking process to require patent applicants and owners to designate the "ultimate parent entity" in control of the patent or application when they are involved in proceedings before the PTO.
    • Tightening functional claiming. The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as the use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field. A Software Partnership Meeting will be held on December 5, 2013, to bring stakeholders together to share ideas, experiences, and insights, and to provide a forum for informal discussion of topics specific to the software community.
    • Empowering downstream users. The PTO will publish new education and outreach materials, including an accessible, plain-English website offering answers to common questions asked by those facing demands from a patent assertion entity.
    • Expanding dedicated outreach and study. The Department of Justice (DOJ), PTO, and FTC will expand their outreach efforts to stakeholders such as patent holders, research institutions, consumer advocates, public interest groups, and the general public. This will include holding events across the country to develop new ideas and consensus around updates to patent policies and laws. The PTO has already expanded its Edison Scholars Program to develop more robust data and research on issues bearing on abusive litigation.
    • Strengthen enforcement process of exclusion orders. The U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) is launching an interagency review of existing procedures that Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. International Trade Commission use to evaluate the scope of exclusion orders and work to ensure the process and standards utilized during exclusion order enforcement. The IPEC is also working to ensure that the process and standards utilized during exclusion order enforcement activities are transparent, effective, and efficient. A request for public submissions was posted on June 20, 2013, and the comment period closed on July 21, 2013.
  • Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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
Rose S. Lee
 
In association with
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