United States: Congress Continues To Promote Patent Reform Efforts

In recent years, Congress has devoted a great deal of attention to patent reform. Those efforts led in 2011 to passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which was the most extensive revision of the patent laws in decades. However, there is a widespread perception that additional reforms are needed to stem continued abuses of and inefficiencies in the patent system.

Immediately after the 2014 mid-term elections, leaders in both the House of Representatives and Senate vowed to take up patent reform early in the 114th Congress. They meant what they said, as currently there are seven proposals for patent reform in various stages of consideration: (1) The Innovation Act; (2) The PATENT Act; (3) The STRONG Act; (4) The TROL Act; (5) The Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015; (6) The Innovation Protection Act; and (7) The Grace Period Restoration Act. A summary of each of these seven bills follows:

H.R. 9 - Innovation Act 2015

On February 5, 2015, Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) reintroduced his patent reform bill: the Innovation Act. Co-sponsors of the Act include the bipartisan group of Reps. DeFazio (D-OR), Issa (R-CA), Nadler (D-NY), Smith (R-NJ), Lofgren (D-CA), Chabot (R-OH), Eshoo (D-CA), Forbes (R-VA), Pierlusi (D-PR), Chaffetz (R-UT), Jeffries (D-NY), Marino (R-PA), Farenthold (R-TX), Holding (R-NC), Johnson (D-GA), Huffman (D-CA), Honda (D-CA), and Larsen (D-WA).

The Innovation Act as initially introduced was essentially the same bill that Rep. Goodlatte introduced in 2013 and that passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 325 to 91. Later that year, the Act was pulled by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) at the behest of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) before being voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Reid was motivated by "objections from the pharmaceutical industry and trial lawyers" according to an article by Kate Tummarello in The Hill on May 21, 2014.

The 2015 version of the bill, as amended on June 9, 2015, includes the following key provisions:

Demand Letters: The Innovation Act states a belief that parties who send purposely evasive demand letters are abusing the patent system in a manner that contravenes public policy. It provides that such demand letters "should be considered" a fraudulent or deceptive practice and an exceptional circumstance when considering whether the litigation is abusive. It would also make a pre-suit demand letter inadmissible to prove that the alleged infringement was willful unless the demand letter identifies: (1) the asserted patent; (2) the ultimate parent entity of the claimant; (3) the accused product or process; and (4) how the accused product or process infringes at least one claim of the asserted patent.

Heightened Pleading Requirements: The Innovation Act would significantly raise the pleading requirement for patent cases. The complaint would need to provide specified details, if such information is "reasonably accessible," with respect to each patent allegedly infringed, including the identity of each accused instrumentality and a description of any alleged acts of induced or contributory infringement. The Act would also require plaintiffs to state whether the patent is essential or potentially essential to a standard-setting body. The Act would also eliminate Form 18 in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Form 18"), which has been relied upon to date to minimize the required contents of a patent infringement complaint. (The Judicial Conference has already proposed this step.) Pharmaceutical companies filing Hatch-Waxman infringement actions under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) would not need to comply with these enhanced pleading requirements.

Venue: The Innovation Act was amended on June 10, 2015 to add a venue provision that would substantially limit where patent suits could be filed. Except in cases filed by a foreign entity, such suits would have to be filed in a venue with a substantial connection to the case, such as because the defendant is incorporated there or has a physical facility there, or because the patented invention was conceived there, related R&D occurred in a physical facility there, or the patentee manufactures a patented product there. This provision would seem to limit the number of cases that could be brought in the Eastern District of Texas, while allowing such courts as the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California to remain major patent litigation venues.

Presumption of Attorney Fees: The Innovation Act would eliminate the American Rule presumption that a party bear its own attorney fees in patent cases, requiring instead that courts award prevailing parties their reasonable fees and other expenses unless (1) the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party was reasonably justified in law and fact or (2) special circumstances exist, such as severe economic hardship, that would make such an award unjust. The Innovation Act would also allow the court, if the nonprevailing party were an insolvent shell company unable to pay such a fee award, to join related persons and entities and make the joined parties liable for the unsatisfied portion of the award.

Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review: The Innovation Act would require, in post-grant and inter partes review proceedings, that patent claims be construed in the same manner as a court would construe such claims in a civil action to invalidate the patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board would also need to consider previous claim constructions from civil actions in which the patent owner was a party. This provision would effectively reject the Federal Circuit's recent Couzzo decision, under which unexpired patent claims must be construed under a "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard. An amendment introduced on June 9, 2015 would add several other procedural modifications, including placing limits on who would be permitted to institute a post-grant or inter partes review (to address market manipulation concerns) and authorizing the filing of declaration evidence in a preliminary response to a petition for post-grant or inter partes review.

Discovery Limits: The bill as originally introduced would have limited discovery during the early phases of litigation to information needed for claim construction. However, an amendment dated June 9, 2015 dropped that provision and replaced it with one that would instead (like the PATENT Act, discussed below) limit discovery pending a ruling on certain early-filed dispositive motions. The amendment defines such motions more narrowly than the PATENT Act, limiting them to a motion to sever a claim or drop a party for misjoinder under Rule 21; transfer the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or transfer or dismiss the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In an effort to encourage expeditious rulings, a court would be required to decide such a motion before deciding any other substantive motion or issuing a scheduling order under Rule 16(b). The discovery limitation would not apply in actions where the plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction against a competitor with an allegedly infringing product or process. The Act would also establish a pilot program under which at least six district courts would be required to develop rules and procedures addressing whether and to what extent a party should be entitled to receive, and/or should be required to pay the costs for, both "core" and "non-core" documentary evidence.

Transparency of Ownership: Upon filing a lawsuit, the patent owner would have to disclose to the court and the USPTO "the ultimate parent entity" of any assignee of the patent, as well as any entity with a right to sublicense or enforce the patent(s) at issue and any entity the plaintiff knows to have a financial interest in the patent(s). The patent owner would thereafter have to update this ownership information with the USPTO within 90 days of any change. Failure to comply would result in loss of the ability to recover reasonable fees and other expenses under section 285 or increased damages under section 284 with respect to infringing activities taking place during any period of noncompliance, unless the denial of such damages or fees would be manifestly unjust. Further, a prevailing party accused of infringement could recover, under section 285, reasonable fees and other expenses incurred to discover the identity of any undisclosed entities.

Stay of Customer Suits: The Innovation Act would require courts to grant a motion to stay a lawsuit against a customer who is a retailer or end user for alleged infringement of a patent by selling or using a product manufactured or supplied by another, or a process implemented using a product manufactured or supplied by another, if the following requirements are met: (1) the customer has not materially modified the product or process; (2) the manufacturer/supplier and the customer consent in writing to the stay (required only in certain instances); (3) the manufacturer/supplier is a party to the action or to a separate action involving the same patent or patents related to the same product or process; and (4) the customer agrees to be bound by any issues that the customer has in common with the manufacturer/supplier and are finally decided as to the manufacturer/supplier in an action. The motion to stay would have to be filed no later than the later of (1) 90 days after service of the first pleading that identifies the accused product or process and (2) the date on which the first scheduling order is entered. The stay could be lifted if the action involving the manufacturer/supplier would not resolve a major issue in suit against the customer, or if the stay would unreasonably prejudice and be manifestly unjust to the party seeking to lift the stay.

Foreign Bankruptcy: In cases where the executor in a foreign bankruptcy canceled U.S. intellectual property licenses, the Act would give the licensee(s) the rights under Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code that are already accorded in connection with U.S. bankruptcy proceedings.

Codifying Double Patenting: The bill would codify judicial doctrine relating to the consideration of prior art in cases of double patenting for the purpose of determining the nonobviousness of a second patent's claimed invention.

Current Status: The bill was introduced and is pending in the House Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2015 and will consider it again today (June 11, 2015). As discussed above, Rep. Goodlatte released a new version of the bill (the "manager's amendment") earlier this week, on June 9, 2015, bringing it closer in some ways to the PATENT Act (discussed below). Update: The House Judiciary Committee approved the Innovation Act by a vote of 24-8 and it now moves on to the full House of Representatives.

S.1137 - PATENT Act 2015

On April 29, 2015, Sen. Grassley (R-IA), along with Sens. Leahy (D-VT), Cornyn (R-TX), Schumer (D-NY), Lee (R-UT), Hatch (R-UT), and Klobuchar (D-MN), introduced the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 (PATENT) Act.

Pleading Requirements: Similar to the Innovation Act, the PATENT Act would require that additional information be included in a complaint, counterclaim, or cross-claim for patent infringement. The pleading would have to (1) identify each patent and patent claim allegedly infringed; (2) identify each instrumentality accused of infringing each asserted claim, stating specified details about each accused instrumentality if known; (3) describe how each accused instrumentality is alleged to infringe each asserted claim, on an element-by-element basis; and (4) for each claim of indirect infringement, describe the acts that are alleged to have contributed to or induced the direct infringement. It would be permissible to state the required information at a general level if the details are not accessible and the pleading explains the reasons for the inaccessibility.

Customer Stay: The PATENT Act would provide for a stay of patent suits against customers of allegedly infringing manufacturers and suppliers, and for the lifting of such stays, on substantially the same terms as described above in connection with the Innovation Act.

Discovery: The PATENT Act would direct the Judicial Conference to develop rules and procedures governing the extent to which a party should have to bear the cost of discovery beyond what is considered "core" for the case. The PATENT Act would prohibit such additional document discovery unless the parties agree otherwise, or the requesting party posts a bond or provides other security in an amount sufficient to cover the expected costs of the additional discovery, or the requesting party makes a showing that the other party has the financial capacity to bear the cost of such discovery. The PATENT Act would also require that district courts stay discovery while early dispositive motions (e.g., motions to dismiss and motions to transfer venue) are being considered.

USPTO Proceedings: A manager's amendment to the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee would enact several changes to inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings. Similar to the Innovation Act and the STRONG Patents Act, this amendment would require that claims in USPTO trial proceedings be construed in the same manner as a court would construe such claims in a civil action, thus scrapping the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard endorsed by Cuozzo and in use today. The amendment would allow the patent owner to submit evidence as part of the preliminary response. Other amendments would instruct the Director of the USPTO to prescribe rules to ensure that the panel adjudicating a post-grant or inter partes proceeding consists of not more than one individual who participated in the decision to institute the proceeding.

Attorney Fees: The PATENT Act would provide that if the position or conduct of the non-prevailing party in patent litigation was not objectively reasonable, the court shall, upon motion, award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party unless special circumstances would make an award unjust.

Demand Letters: The PATENT Act would subject plaintiffs engaged in widespread sending of bad-faith demand letters to penalties as an unfair or deceptive business practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. If the initial written notice provided to the defendant prior to the filing of the civil action did not contain the information required by the new pleading rules described above, the defendant's time to respond to the complaint would be extended by 30 days.

Bankruptcy Provisions: As the official summary of the bill states, the PATENT Act would make clear "that as a matter of public policy, U.S. courts will not recognize the action of a foreign court to unilaterally cancel a license to a U.S. patent or trademark if the licensor goes bankrupt." The bill would also extend to trademarks the protection currently afforded to licensees of U.S. patents in connection with U.S. bankruptcy proceedings.

Current Status: The PATENT Act was introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on the bill on May 7, 2015 and approved it by a vote of 16-4 last week. The bill will now move to the full Senate.

S.632 - STRONG Patents Act of 2015

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), along with co-sponsors Durbin (D-IL) and Hirono (D-HI), submitted the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation's Growth (STRONG) Patents Act of 2015. The STRONG Patents Act is narrower in scope than the two bills discussed above, focusing on revising the procedures applicable to the post-issuance review of patents. The Act does include a few omnibus provisions as well. Following is a summary of the Act's key provisions.

Post-Issuance Review Procedures

  1. Claim Construction: The STRONG Patents Act would direct the USPTO to prescribe regulations requiring the PTAB to construe patent claims in post-grant or inter partes review proceedings in the same manner as a court in a civil action would do when determining the validity of a patent. The effect would be to eliminate the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard currently used in USPTO proceedings. The Act would also require that the USPTO consider any prior court rulings construing the claims in a civil action to which the patent owner was a party.
  2. Validity Determinations: The Act would require that the PTAB apply a presumption of validity during post-issuance challenges. The petitioner would bear the burden of proving the unpatentability of a previously issued claim by clear and convincing evidence, and proving the unpatentability of an amended claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Currently, the preponderance of evidence standard applies to all such claims.
  3. Availability of Post-Issuance Review Procedures: The Act would require that ex parte reexaminations be filed within one year after the requester (or its privy or real party in interest) is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the subject patent(s). It would prohibit inter partes or post-grant reviews while the patent is the subject of a reissue or reexamination proceeding. It would limit all post-issuance review petitions to persons (or their privies or real parties in interest) who have been sued for or charged with infringement, or who demonstrate a reasonable possibility of being sued for or charged with infringement, or who demonstrate a competitive harm related to the validity of the patent.
  4. Amendments: The bill would permit a patent owner to amend a patent during a post-issuance review if the owner has not already amended the patent during the review and the proposed number of substitute claims is reasonable. The PTAB would have discretion to grant or deny any additional motions to amend the patent.
  5. Decisionmakers: The Act would prohibit a post-issuance review from being heard by PTAB members who participated in a decision to institute the review.
  6. Real Parties in Interest: The Act would require that a reexamination request identify the real parties in interest on whose behalf the request is being filed. It would also allow a patent owner to conduct discovery for the purpose of identifying the petitioner's real party in interest.

Fee Division: The STRONG Patents Act would require that all patent and trademark fees be credited to a revolving fund in the Treasury to be known as the United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund. Fees in the Fund would be available to cover USPTO expenses without fiscal year limitation.

Expanded Micro-Entity Status: The Act would provide micro entity status (which makes certain small entities eligible for reduced patent fees) to certifying institutions of higher education or their related patent commercialization entities (provided that such entities certify that they have tax exempt status).

Pleading Requirements: As with the Innovation Act (described above), the Act would eliminate Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Willful Infringement: The Act would provide courts with discretion to increase damages awarded to a claimant up to three times the amount found by a jury or assessed by the court upon determining, by a preponderance of the evidence, that infringement was willful or in bad faith.

Induced Infringement: The bill would allow a finding of liability for actively inducing infringement of a process patent, or for contributory infringement of a process patent, even if the steps of the patented process are not practiced by a single entity. This would effectively reverse the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., which held that there can be no liability for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when there has been no direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

Demand Letters: The STRONG Patents Act continues the theme of frowning upon bad faith demand letters. The Act would require that such letters be treated as an unfair or deceptive practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, direct the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the FTCA against those who engage in a pattern or practice of sending such letters, and authorize state attorneys general to do so as well.

Current Status: The STRONG Patents Act was introduced on March 3, 2015 and is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing was held in the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship on March 19, 2015.

H.R. 2045 – TROL Act

The Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act was introduced on April 28, 2015 by Rep. Burgess (R-TX). The co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Kaptur (D-OH), Lance (R-NJ), Harper (R-MS), Mullin (R-OK), and Kinzinger (R-IL).

The Act would direct the Federal Trade Commission and authorize state attorneys general to prosecute parties sending bad faith demand letters as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Several deceptive practices that would violate the act include: misrepresenting ownership or enforcement rights; falsely claiming that court actions have been filed against the party or other parties; falsely claiming that other parties have licensed the asserted patents or that an investigation regarding infringement of an accused product has occurred. The Act would require that communication with parties accused of infringement include an identification of the asserted patents and the accused products or methods, as well as contact information to discuss the assertions or claims.

The Act would further preempt any state law or regulation expressly relating to the transmission or contents of communications relating to the assertion of patent rights.

Current status: On April 29, 2015 the House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved the Act by a vote of 30-22. This vote means that the TROL Act will be favorably reported out of Committee and now moves on for consideration by the full House of Representatives.

H.R. 1896 – Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015

Rep. Polis (D-CO) introduced the Demand Letter Transparency Act on April 20, 2015. The bill was co-sponsored by Reps. Marino (R-PA) and Deutch (D-FL).

The bill provides that any entity that sends more than 20 demand letters during any 365-day period must identify the following to the USPTO:

  • the patent, including a confirmation that the entity that sent the letter is the owner of the patent and is the last recorded entity in USPTO records for purposes of assignment, grant, or conveyance;
  • the entity that has the right to license the patent or the name of the exclusive licensee;
  • each entity asserting a claim with regard to the patent;\
  • each obligation to license the patent and the financial terms on which such patent has been licensed;
  • the ultimate parent entity of the entity asserting a claim with regard to the patent;
  • the number of recipients of the demand letter;\
  • any case that has been filed by the entity asserting a claim relating to such patent; and
  • any ex parte or inter partes review of such patent.

The bill would create a publicly accessible and searchable database of the information submitted. The Act would also require payment of a registration fee by a patent owner prior to filing a demand letter.

The bill would also require that any demand letter sent to another entity contain the following:

  • an identification of each patent and each claim thereof that is or may be allegedly infringed;
  • an identification of each accused instrumentality (by name or model number in the case of accused products, or by name in the case of accused methods, systems or processes);
  • the identity of each party alleging infringement;
  • for claims of indirect infringement, a description of the direct infringement and the acts that allegedly are contributing to or inducing the direct infringement;
  • a description of the principal business of the party alleging infringement;
  • a list of each complaint filed that asserts or asserted any of the same patents, each case filed by such entity, and any ex parte or inter partes reviews for each patent;
  • a statement of whether the patent is subject to any licensing term or pricing commitments;
  • the identity of any owners, co-owners, assignees, or exclusive licensees of the patent;
  • the identity of any person who has a legal right to enforce the patent;
  • the identity of any person with a direct financial interest in the license of the patent;
  • an explanation of how the recipient can access the USPTO demand letter database; and
  • a clear statement reading "You are not required to respond to this letter by law."

The Demand Letter Transparency Act would permit a recipient of a demand letter to petition the USPTO if it believes that the disclosure or patent letter information requirements have not been met. If the USPTO determines that a requirement has not been met for reasons other than a good faith mistake, it would be required to notify the patent owner that the patent will be voided unless a fee is paid.

Current Status: The bill was introduced and is pending in the House Judiciary Committee. On May 15, 2015 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

H.R. 1832 - Innovation Protection Act

Rep. Conyers (D-MI) introduced the Innovation Protection Act on April 16, 2015. The Act was co-sponsored by Reps. Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Nadler (D-NY), Franks (R-AZ), Lofgren (D-CA), Collins (R-GA), Deutch (D-FL), Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Jeffries (D-NY).

The bill is similar to a provision of the STRONG Patents Act, discussed above, in that it would establish in the Treasury a fund (here called the "United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund") to be used as a revolving fund by the Director of the USPTO without fiscal year limitation. Fees collected by the USPTO would thus remain available to the USPTO until expended.

Congress's recent practice has been to divert a portion of the fees received by the USPTO for other purposes. Congress has diverted over $1 billion in user fees from the USPTO since 1992, according to the Intellectual Property Owners Association. The Innovation Protection Act would essentially end that practice.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 created a fund for use by the USPTO, but how much the USPTO can expend from the AIA fund is still governed by appropriators. The Innovation Protection Act would provide the Director discretion on how to expend monies in the AIA fund that are generated by USPTO fees. The Innovation Protection Act would require that the Director of the USPTO arrange an annual independent audit of the USPTO's financial statements, to be conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Current Status: The bill was introduced and is pending in the House Judiciary Committee. On May 15, 2015 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

H.R. 1791 / S. 926 - Grace Period Restoration Act of 2015

The Grace Period Restoration Act of 2015 was introduced on April 14, 2015 by Reps. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Conyers (D-MI) in the House of Representatives and by Sens. Baldwin and Vitter in the Senate.

The Act would amend federal patent law to clarify the one-year grace period under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The grace period exists to encourage early publication by inventors, such as those who are affiliated with universities or other research entities. It provides that a claimed invention is not rendered ineligible for patent protection by virtue of certain public disclosures made during the year preceding the effective filing date of the patent application, including (A) disclosures "made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor," and (B) disclosures made subsequent to an (A) disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A), (B).

An ambiguity has arisen as to whether the grace period eliminates as prior art all disclosures that follow an inventor's original disclosure made within the grace period, or only some such disclosures. The USPTO decided the latter, adopting a regulation under which a subsequent disclosure is disqualified as prior art only if it represents the same "subject matter" as the inventor's prior disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 1.130. The USPTO also issued guidelines describing what some consider a narrow view of what constitutes the same subject matter. For example, the guidelines state that "if the inventor . . . had publicly disclosed a genus, and a subsequent intervening grace period disclosure discloses a species, the intervening grace period disclosure of the species would be available as prior art . . . ." Examination Guidelines for Implementing the First Inventor to File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

The sponsors of the Grace Period Restoration Act assert that the USPTO interpretation violates Congress's intent when it enacted the AIA's grace period provision. Their remedy is to provide in the Act that any disclosure made subsequent to a qualified disclosure by an inventor or other covered person "shall not be prior art." The inventor's prior disclosure would have to have been made "1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention" and "in a printed publication . . . in a manner that satisfies the relevant section 112(a) requirements [i.e., all § 112(a) requirements other than best mode]." The Act would also establish additional standards for determining whether the inventor's prior disclosure adequately disclosed the claimed invention for purposes of the grace period.

Current Status: The House version of the bill was introduced and is currently pending in the House Judiciary Committee. On May 15, 2015, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. The Senate version of the bill was introduced and is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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
Events from this Firm
25 Oct 2018, Workshop, Las Vegas, United States

The BLX/Orrick Workshop offers timely discussions of topics related to post-issuance compliance and tax law for the public finance and 501(c)(3) communities who borrow on a tax-exempt basis.

30 Oct 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Employment partner Mike Delikat is participating in a discussion hosted by Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations led by Counsel to New York State Governor Cuomo and chair of the Governor’s workgroup on the deregulation of adult marijuana use, Alphonso David.

5 Nov 2018, Speaking Engagement, Washington, United States

Please join Orrick antitrust partner Jay Jurata on Monday, November 5th at An Antitrust Professor on the Bench - Judge Douglas Ginsburg Liber Amicorum Conference.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

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