United States: ITC Commissioners Divided Over Standards For Cease And Desist Orders

Recent decisions by the Commission highlight a split among the Commissioners over the proper standard for issuing cease and desist orders.

The majority of Commissioners appear to agree that the determination regarding whether to issue a cease and desist order is based on whether the respondent has commercially significant domestic operations or inventory of infringing products, even though those standards are not set forth in Section 337 in the United States.  The Commission majority takes a similar position with respect to issuing cease and desist orders against defaulting respondents.

Chairman Schmidtlein considers the presence of some infringing domestic inventory, regardless of its commercial significance, enough to provide a basis to issue a cease and desist order.  Further, in her view, issuance of a cease and desist order is mandated for defaulting respondents where the statutory requirements are met unless such relief is contrary to the public interest.

Commissioner Kieff believes that cease and desist orders should be more "favored" than under the current approach taken by the Commission majority and that commercially significant inventory should not be the only path to a cease and desist order.  With respect to defaulting respondents, it is Commissioner Kieff's view that even if the statutory framework is not ultimately interpreted to compel the issuance of a cease and desist order against a defaulting party upon request, some force and effect must be given to the text of the statute, which provides that the Commission "shall presume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true."  19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).

Origins of the Commission Divide – Certain Dental Implants (337-TA-934)

The Commissioners' differing viewpoints with respect to the standard for issuing cease and desist orders first arose in Certain Dental Implants, Investigation No. 337‑TA‑934.  In that Investigation, the Commission determined that certain dental implants imported by JJGC Indústria e Comércio de Materiais Dentários S/A ("JJGC") and its subsidiary infringed two patents owned by Nobel.  Certain Dental Implants, Inv. No. 337-TA-934, Comm'n Op. at 23 (May 11, 2016).  The Commission issued a limited exclusion order blocking JJGC and its subsidiary from importing their infringing dental implants.  Id. at 49.  But the Commission declined to issue a cease and desist order because the Commissioners were divided evenly, three‑to‑three, on whether it was appropriate.  Id. at 49-51 & fn.29-33.

Commission Majority

Then-Chairman Broadbent, Vice Chairman Pinkert and Commissioners Williamson and Johanson wrote separately to emphasize their collective view that cease and desist orders are generally issued pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1) when, with respect to the imported infringing products, respondents maintain commercially significant inventories in the United States or have significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided by an exclusion order.  Certain Dental Implants, Inv. No. 337-TA-934, Additional Views of Chairman Broadbent, Vice Chairman Pinkert and Commissioners Williamson and Johanson (May 11, 2016).

In the 934 Investigation, Vice Chairman Pinkert and Commissioners Williamson and Johanson concluded that a cease and desist order against JJGC's subsidiary was not appropriate.  Certain Dental Implants, Comm'n Op. at fn.30.  They found that Judge Shaw had reasonably concluded that domestic inventories of the accused products would have dropped below a commercially significant amount by the time the target date of the investigation was reached, and thus Nobel failed to meet its burden of proof.  Id.

Chairman Schmidtlein

Chairman Schmidtlein did not write separately in the Commission's final determination in the 934 Investigation, but in a footnote she took the position that Section 337(f)(1) leaves the determination of whether to issue a cease and desist order to the discretion of the Commission and does not establish any particular test or standard aside from consideration of the public interest factors.  Id. at fn.32.  Chairman Schmidtlein did not see the value gained by requiring the parties and the Commission to expend time and resources addressing the extent of domestic inventory levels or operations as a predicate to issuing cease and desist orders.  Id.  In her view, there is little harm if an order issues even though a respondent does not maintain a commercially significant domestic inventory.  Id.  On the other hand, in her view, the requirement of commercially significant inventory carries the risk of harm for the complainant since the Commission may decide not to issue a cease and desist order, which may undermine exclusion order relief.  Id.

Commissioner Kieff

Commissioner Kieff filed separate views, in which he noted that he would benefit from additional input on the following two issues:

  1. Whether the ITC has a practice of not issuing cease and desist orders in the absence of commercially significant inventory in the United States; and
  2. Perhaps because of this potential practice, whether the law provides a presumption against a cease and desist order unless the patentee proves the existence of such inventory.

Certain Dental Implants, Inv. No. 337-TA-934, Additional Views of Commissioner Kieff (May 11, 2016).

Further, Commissioner Kieff stated that a decision about whether to grant a cease and desist order inevitably allocates the risk of getting the exact amount of inventory incorrect.  Id.  He noted that the true state of such inventory is that it is either relatively high or relatively low.  Id.  In his view, there is no harm in issuing a cease and desist order if the inventory is relatively low because it will have little impact.  Id.  If the inventory is relatively high, then a cease and desist order will have a large impact that is at least appropriate, if not required, to protect a legal right that was just adjudicated to have been infringed, while at the same time the ITC will be exercising in personam jurisdiction only over the individual party who has been adjudicated to be infringing.  Id.

Chairman Broadbent, Commissioner Schmidtlein and Commissioner Kieff found that a cease and desist order was appropriate in Certain Dental ImplantsCertain Dental Implants, Comm'n Op. at fn.31.  They found the number of accused products in existence in U.S. inventory at the time of the evidentiary hearing to be commercially significant, and they found Respondents' remedy briefing projections to be unsupported and unreliable, providing no indication that the proven inventories had fallen below commercially significant levels.  Id.

The Commission Divide Continues – Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology (337-TA-965)

In Certain Table Saws, Investigation No. 337-TA-965, the complainant requested, and Judge Pender recommended, that the Commission issue a cease and desist order directed against Robert Bosch Tool Corp. ("Bosch").  Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology, Inv. No. 337-TA-965, Comm'n Op. at 6 (Feb. 1, 2017).  Judge Pender found that the parties had stipulated that Bosch possessed a certain number of REAXX saws and activation cartridges in the United States as of January 20, 2016, and he concluded that this inventory was commercially significant.  Id.  Based on the record evidence relied on by Judge Pender, the Commission issued a cease and desist order against Bosch with respect to table saws that infringed certain claims of the patents-in-suit.  Id.

Chairman Schmidtlein

In a footnote, Chairman Schmidtlein once again expressed her view that the existence of a commercially significant infringing inventory in the United States should not be a prerequisite to issuing a cease and desist order.  Id. at fn.2.  Chairman Schmidtlein explained that she failed to see any benefit to requiring the parties and the Commission to expend time and resources addressing the extent of domestic inventory levels as a predicate to issuing a cease and desist order.  Id.  In her view, such a requirement unnecessarily carries risk for the complainant since even the presence of one infringing product in domestic inventory can undercut the exclusion order and prevent complete relief.  Id.  Because of this, Chairman Schmidtlein believes that the presence of some infringing domestic inventory, regardless of the commercial significance, provides a basis for issuing a cease and desist order.  Id.  She agreed that a cease and desist order was appropriate for Respondent Bosch in the 965 Investigation due to its maintenance of infringing domestic inventory, regardless of the commercial significance.  Id.

Commissioner Kieff

Commissioner Kieff again filed separate views to address the Commission's cease and desist order standards.  Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology, Inv. No. 337-TA-965, Separate Views of Commissioner F. Scott Kieff Concurring as to CDO Remedy and Dissenting as to Bond Determination (Feb. 1, 2017).  Commissioner Kieff supported the Commission majority's determination in this investigation to issue a cease and desist order directed at Bosch and explained that "our statutory framework's specific wording and legislative history make clear that access to the CDO remedy should generally be significantly more favored than suggested by the approach taken by the Commission Majority in these cases."  Id.  Commissioner Kieff noted that the majority's mention of commercially significant inventory implies that the search for evidence of the degree of such inventory is the only appropriate inquiry regarding issuance of a cease and desist order.  Id.  But in his view, commercially significant inventory should not be the only way to show that a cease and desist order is appropriate.  Id.  Commissioner Kieff explained two reasons why increased access to cease and desist orders is prudent:

  1. A cease and desist order is granted only after a full and fair opportunity to litigate all defenses to enforcement of a complainant's purported right against unfair competition, including a patent's invalidity, unenforceability, non-infringement, as well as any public interest factors potentially militating against the imposition of a remedy; and
  2. A cease and desist order operates only in personam against the particular parties who had the full and fair opportunity to litigate and lost and only against the practice of particular activities adjudicated to be unfair competition.

Id.

Defaulting Respondents – Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor (337-TA-959)

Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, Investigation No. 337‑TA‑959, dealt with cease and desist orders against defaulting respondents.  All of the Commissioners agreed that the statutory provision relating to defaulting respondents, Section 337(g)(1), and not Section 337(f)(1), authorizes the Commission to issue remedy orders for violations by defaulting respondents.  Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm'n Op. at 24, Separate Views of Commissioner F. Scott Kieff Concurring as to Remedy for Respondents in Default, Separate Views of Chairman Rhonda K. Schmidtlein on Cease and Desist Orders (Feb. 13, 2017).

Commission Majority

Section 337(g)(1) provides that "the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and shall, upon request, issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist order, or both, limited to that person" unless the Commission determines that it is not in the public interest to issue such relief.  19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) (emphasis added).  Even though Section 337(g)(1) includes this "shall" language, the majority of Commissioners have determined that this provision provides the Commission with discretion to choose whether to issue a cease and desist order where defaulting respondents are found in violation of Section 337.  Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Comm'n Op. at 24-25.

It was the use of the term "appropriate relief" in the legislative history that led the majority of Commissioners to conclude that Section 337(g)(1) allows for discretion to determine whether to issue a cease and desist order despite the "shall" language in the statute.  Id. at 25.  A Conference Committee Report prepared at the time the default judgment provision was added to Section 337 in 1988 clarified that under the new default provision, the Commission has authority to issue "appropriate relief" for defaulting respondents.  Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Comm'n Op. at 25; H. Conf. Rep. No. 100-576, at 636.  This reference to the Commission's authority to issue "appropriate relief" to defaulting respondents refers to the language of Section 337(g)(1), setting forth the types of relief the Commission may choose from—"an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist order, or both"—and echoes the House and Senate Report statements concerning the Commission's authority to select "appropriate" relief as to participating respondents depending on the circumstances in connection with the concurrent amendment to Section 337(f).  Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Comm'n Op. at 25.  In addition, Section 337(c) includes Section 337(g) within the list of statutory provisions concerning "the appropriate remedy" that is subject to judicial review under Section 706 of Title 5.  19 U.S.C. § 1337(c); Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Comm'n Op. at 25.

As noted above, the majority of the Commissioners continue to require evidence of commercially significant inventories in the United States or significant domestic operations to issue a cease and desist order.  Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Comm'n Op. at 26.  In Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, the Commission majority explained that in default cases, the Commission examines the record, including facts alleged in the complaint that are deemed to be true, as well as any other information the complainant has been able to obtain, and have found it appropriate to draw certain inferences from this evidence in favor of the complainant to provide the necessary relief.  Id. at 28.  Specifically with respect to cases where the respondent is located in the United States and has defaulted under Section 337(g)(1), the Commission majority noted that, due to the domestic presence and lack of participation, the Commission has historically granted a complainant's request for a cease and desist order regarding U.S.-based activities.  Id. at 28-29.  But the Commission majority also explained that it has declined to automatically presume the presence of inventories in the United States to support the issuance of a cease and desist order against a defaulting respondent located outside the United States.  Id. at 29.  Instead, the Commission will examine whether the complaint alleges facts that support the inference that the defaulting foreign respondent or its agents maintain commercially significant inventories in the United States or whether circumstantial evidence such as online offers for sale, sales and distribution of infringing products supports the allegations in the complaint that the foreign defaulting respondents maintain commercially significant U.S. inventories and/or engage in significant commercial business operations in the United States.  Id. at 29-30.

In Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, the Commission found that issuance of cease and desist orders against all defaulting respondents—both domestic and foreign—was appropriate.  Id. at 31-33.

Chairman Schmidtlein

Chairman Schmidtlein wrote separately to outline her view that use of the term "shall" in Section 337(g)(1) mandates issuance of a cease and desist order for a defaulting respondent where the following statutory requirements are met, unless such relief is contrary to the public interest:

  1. A complaint is filed against a person under this section;
  2. The complaint and a notice of investigation are served on the person;
  3. The person fails to respond to the complaint and notice or otherwise fails to appear to answer the complaint and notice;
  4. The person fails to show good cause why the person should not be found in default; and
  5. The complainant seeks relief limited solely to that person.

Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Separate Views of Chairman Rhonda K. Schmidtlein on Cease and Desist Orders, at 1-3.  Chairman Schmidtlein pointed out that the majority's view renders the remedial language of Section 337(g)(1) superfluous in view of the remedial relief provided in Sections 337(d)(1) and (f)(1), which requires the Commission to provide some form of relief against a party in violation but grants the Commission discretion to decide whether to issue a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order or both.  Id. at 5.

Chairman Schmidtlein also disagreed with the majority's adoption of a commercially significant inventory/business operations test for statutory defaulters as a threshold for issuing cease and desist orders, as that approach presumes the exercise of discretion.  Id.  She noted that Section 337(g)(1) does not mention inventory and does not explicitly establish a commercially significant inventory requirement in order for the Commission to issue a cease and desist order.  Id. at 2, 5.  In Chairman Schmidtlein's view, the majority's approach may make it harder for a complainant to obtain a cease and desist order against a foreign defaulting respondent than against a foreign participating respondent because, without discovery, a complainant may have no basis to ascertain the existence and levels of inventories.  Id. at 5.

In the Electric Skin Care Devices Investigation, Chairman Schmidtlein ultimately agreed with the Commission majority's determination that issuance of cease and desist orders against all defaulting respondents—both domestic and foreign—was appropriate.

Commissioner Kieff

Finally, Commissioner Kieff joined the Commission's determination to issue a cease and desist order as to each of the defaulting respondents, both domestic and foreign.  Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Separate Views of Commissioner F. Scott Kieff Concurring as to Remedy for Respondents in Default, at 1.  Commissioner Kieff's view is that the majority's approach to cease and desist orders with respect to defaulting respondents under Section 337(g)(1) is similar to its approach to Section 337(f)(1) but even more strained.  Id. at 7.  He was skeptical of the majority's reliance under Section 337(g)(1) on the word "appropriate" in the legislative history as the basis for the Commission's view that it has discretion in granting relief against respondents.  Id.  In Commissioner Kieff's view, a citation by the Federal Circuit to one example of undercutting the effectiveness of an exclusion order where significant domestic inventory exists does not make domestic inventory the only legally recognized type of undercutting to be remedied by a cease and desist order, and the majority's focus on that standard alone does not answer the question of whether other factors may be appropriate to consider when determining whether exclusion orders may be undercut.  Id. at 7-8.

Commissioner Kieff went on to explain that any argument about implied delegation with respect to cease and desist orders in general would have to at least address the specific and explicit mandate in Section 337(g)(1), which at least on its face appears to compel the grant of a cease and desist order in the specific case of a defaulting party, upon request of the petitioner, where no public interest considerations weigh against such relief.  Id. at 9.  In Commissioner Kieff's view, even if Section 337(g)(1) is not ultimately interpreted to compel the issuance of a cease and desist order against a defaulting party upon request, some force and effect must be given to the text stating that the Commission "shall presume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true."  Id. at 9-10.

Potential Impact of the Commission Split Over the Legal Standard for Cease and Desist Orders

While the Commissioners appear divided on the proper standard for cease and desist orders, the views of Chairman Schmidtlein and Commissioner Kieff suggest that it may be easier for complainants in certain cases to obtain cease and desist orders against respondents in ITC investigations.  While Chairman Schmidtlein takes the view that the presence of some infringing domestic inventory, regardless of its commercial significance, is enough to justify a cease and desist order, Commissioner Kieff believes that there should be alternative paths to obtain a cease and desist order beyond commercially significant inventory.  If Chairman Schmidtlein and Commissioner Kieff are able to persuade a few of their colleagues at the Commission, we may begin to see an easing of the evidentiary burden for obtaining a cease and desist order.  While Commissioner Kieff has stated that cease and desist orders should not be awarded automatically or in every instance, issuing a cease and desist order based on the existence of any infringing domestic inventory or based on some other cogent reason plead by the complainant eases the burden on complainants for this relief.

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
G. Brian Busey
 
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

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.

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 by clicking here .

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.

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.