United States: Post-Grant Proceedings As A Freedom-To-Operate Tool

While some may take it as a given that patent owners view America Invents Act post-grant proceedings—inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews—as disadvantageously weakening the U.S. patent system, the attitudes of patent owners may be more nuanced. Many parties, whether themselves patent owners or not, believe that IPRs and PGRs can also strengthen the U.S. patent system by providing less expensive and speedier avenues for rooting out invalid, i.e., unpatentable, patents.

To be sure, many IPR petitions are defensive, filed by petitioners accused of infringing the targets of those IPRs. On the other hand, there are innovative companies that file IPR and/or PGR petitions with an objective of acquiring freedom-to-operate (FTO) in the United States relative to the patent(s) of a third-party patent owner, often itself an innovative company.

For instance, perhaps Company A has just completed an intellectual property due diligence for acquiring Company B, including its products and patent portfolio. Perhaps the due diligence has raised the specter of lack of FTO for Company B's products in view of third-party patents. While ex parte re-examination requests and declaratory judgment actions remain options for Company A, it may well conclude that the least expensive, most timely, way to clear the FTO issue(s) is to challenge the roadblock patents via IPR or PGR. Not only are IPRs and PGRs statutorily mandated to terminate within 12 months,1 they also offer attractive features, compared to district court litigation, to challengers such as no presumption of validity, a preponderance of the evidence standard, and broadest reasonable claim interpretation. Limited discovery and—as a general rule—no live testimony contribute to keeping the costs and time lower than in district court litigation.

Without passing judgment on the overarching and much-debated question of whether IPRs and PGRs are inherently bad for patent owners, this article accepts the availability of IPRs and PGRs in their present state and explores the use of post-grant proceedings by innovative companies as FTO tools. This article defines innovative companies as those that invent products and protect those products with patents.

No Statutory or Policy Restrictions on Innovator-Filed IPRs or PGRs

Generally speaking, nearly anyone has standing to file IPR and PGR petitions. The relevant statutory provisions are broad, encompassing any person who is "not the owner of the patent" to be challenged.2 This is slightly narrowed by further provisions prohibiting filing of a petition by a party who has previously requested a declaratory judgment of invalidity,3 been sued for infringement in district court more than one year earlier (for IPRs only),4 and also may be narrowed by statutory and doctrinal estoppel provisions against, for example, the petitioner.5

Timing constraints are tied to the differences in scope between IPRs and PGRs. PGR petitions, which can raise any statutory ground of invalidity, may only be filed within nine months from issuance of a patent having at least one claim with an effective filing date after March 15, 2013, and also otherwise qualifying for PGR-attack.6 In contrast, in IPRs, only §102 or §103 grounds may be raised, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.7 IPRs can only be filed, for PGR-eligible patents, after the later of nine months post-issuance or the termination of any PGR instituted on the same claims.8 (For patents not eligible for PGR, e.g., pre-AIA patents, IPRs can be filed upon issue.) In addition, as mentioned above, a party who has been sued for infringement is prohibited from filing an IPR more than one year after being served with said suit.9

Congress' objectives for AIA post-grant proceedings were discussed in detail in the legislative history, and included providing a faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation.10 IPRs and PGRs were purportedly also intended to provide a faster administrative challenge route than the existing reexamination process.11 Reflecting those objectives, both 37 C.F.R. 42.1(b) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "Trial and Practice Guide" direct that the rules shall be "construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding."12 Using IPRs and PGRs to establish freedom to operate between fellow innovators is within the scope of the IPR and PGR policy goals of "just, speedy, and inexpensive" alternatives to district court litigation and USPTO re-examinations.

Innovators Trying It: Examples of Innovator-Filed IPRs and PGRs in Biotech, Pharma and Life Sciences

There are several representative examples of IPRs filed by innovators in the bio/pharm field:

  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. filed a petition in IPR2016-00458 against the University of Pennsylvania on its patent relating to compositions and method of treating tumors.
  • Pfizer Inc. challenged Genentech Inc. on eight of its patents related to making antibodies and therapies for autoimmune diseases: IPR2017-01923, IPR2017-01488, IPR2017-01489, IPR2017-01726, IPR2017-01727, IPR2017-01923, IPR2017-02019, IPR2017-02020, IPR2017-02063, IPR2017-02126, IPR2017-02127, and IPR2018-00016.
  • GlaxoSmithKline PLC filed five IPR petitions against FibroGen Inc. patents related to erythropoiesis and iron metabolism: IPR2016-01318, IPR2016-01319, IPR2016-01320, IPR2016-01322, and IPR2016-01323.
  • Purdue Pharma LP filed three IPR petitions against Depomed Inc. patents on extending the duration of drug release: IPR2014-00377, IPR2014-00378, IPR2014-00379.

There are also PGR examples, such as Merck & Co. Inc. filing petitions against Wyeth in PGR2017-00016 and PGR2017-00017 on an immunogenic composition (institution decisions pending).

We selected 207 innovator-filed bio/pharm IPR petitions and created the following charts to provide a snapshot of how innovator-filed petitions have fared in IPRs so far.13

Of these 207 selected innovator-filed bio/pharm IPR petitions, 51 were denied, 83 were granted on at least one claim, 29 were settled prior to an institution decision, and 44 are pending awaiting an institution decision. The grant rate for the 134 institution decisions was 62 percent (83/134) (granted on at least one claim/granted on at least one claim + denied).

Including "no institution" with the "denials" as an outcome favorable for the patent owner because the patent claims remain in force and unchanged, the "win rate" is lower: 49 percent (80/163). A settlement prior to institution may include concessions valuable to the challenger though.

Of the 83 granted IPR petitions, seven are pending awaiting termination, 14 settled after institution, seven had adverse judgments, six had a mixed result (at least one claim survived and at least one claim held unpatentable), one motion to amend was granted, 31 final written decisions held all instituted claims unpatentable, and in 17 final written decisions all instituted claims survived.

Just looking at the final written decisions on the merits, but excluding the mixed outcomes, the patent owner survival rate is 35 percent (17/48), and the innovator petitioner win rate for knocking out the instituted claims is 65 percent (31/48).

Considering the seven adverse judgment cases as a loss for the patent owner (since the instituted claims are canceled), and adding those to the calculation, the win rate for the innovator petitioner is 69 percent (38/55).

For the innovator looking for FTO against one or more third-party patents, a 62 percent chance of having an IPR instituted, and then a 65-69 percent chance of knocking out problematic claims, can be—depending on the circumstances—very appealing odds. In addition, although the 14 instituted cases settled prior to a final written decision (17 percent of the terminated cases) cannot be characterized as a win or loss since the settlement terms are not public, it is likely that the innovator challenger got something of value in the settlement and maybe even achieved FTO.

Evaluation of IPRs and PGRs as FTO Tools

In addition to the general receptiveness the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has displayed so far to petitioners across all technologies,14 there are specific aspects of IPRs and PGRs that can make the PTAB an appealing venue for innovators seeking FTO. One advantage is the technical training of the PTAB's judges. Another is the (so far) very low chance that the PTAB will grant a motion to amend to allow substituted claims.15 A PTAB decision on institution is essentially "nonappealable."16 This is a benefit to the petitioner when the IPR petition is granted and the trial instituted, though is a detriment if the petition is denied. As mentioned earlier, limited discovery and generally no live testimony help keep costs down. Additionally, the lower burden of proof, broadest reasonable interpretation standard for claim construction, and no presumption of patent validity create conditions for a challenger-friendly forum. Fast resolution and direct appeal to the Federal Circuit for final written decisions are two more factors. If the circumstances are such that there is already pending district court litigation on the patent(s) in question, a post-grant proceeding may be the basis for a motion to stay that district court litigation. If the post-grant proceeding is successful and the patent claims are held unpatentable, that outcome may spur settlement in the district court litigation.

Two benefits specific to PGRs and of particular relevance in the bio/pharma context are the opportunity to raise §112 issues, such as claim definiteness, enablement, and written description on the merits,17 and the opportunity to make non-publication-based §102 challenges, such as prior use or sale.

An innovator considering a post-grant proceeding must recognize, however, that there are possible downsides or at least cautions to integrate into the decision. For example, one aspect unique to innovator-initiated post-grant proceedings is that the most relevant art against the third-party target patent may also be relevant to the innovator's own patents. Careful analysis should be performed prior to filing and arguments should be crafted with attention to their potential relevance to the innovator-petitioner's own portfolio. Similar prudence should be taken when discussing lack of enablement and Wands factors. The innovator-petitioner should take care not to provide blueprints for challenges of its own patents.

Estoppel considerations, the boundaries of which remain uncertain right now, must also be taken into account.18 For PGRs, the broader grounds of attack allowed also brings the possibility of broader estoppel. The statutes provide that estoppel generally attaches to any ground "that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during" that IPR or PGR.19 Estoppel applies to any future proceeding before the courts, the patent office, or the U.S. International Trade Commission, but it only attaches if the PTAB issues a final written decision.

How Do IPRs and PGRs Fit Into an Innovator's Overall Portfolio Management Strategy?

IPRs and PGRs may be a tool in the armamentarium of innovators looking for FTO. Of course, ex parte re-examinations and declaratory judgments also remain options for innovators. Which is best in a given set of circumstances may depend on the patent term remaining in the patents of interest, the time frame of the innovator's own projects/patents, how quickly a decision is desired, the appropriate budget in light of the innovator's business objectives, and whether there are related court and/or administrative proceedings pending.

Additionally, innovators hoping to make strategic use of PGRs must closely track competitor activity to know when patents of interest are issued (or reissued). Otherwise, the nine-month window for filing the PGR petition may be missed and the grounds available for challenge will be narrowed to those permitted in an IPR.

Clouds on the Horizon

A number of currently unsettled issues could impact innovators' use of IPRs and PGRs for FTO objectives. For example, if the U.S. Supreme Courtholds post-grant proceedings unconstitutional in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene's Energy Group LLC, cert granted June 12, 2017, innovators' options will be back to only declaratory judgment actions and ex parte re-examinations.

The en banc Federal Circuit decision in Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177, 2017 WL 4399000 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017), means, at least for now, that any attempt by a patent owner to amend challenged claims will require the petitioner to show those proposed claims are unpatentable as well. The possible increased burden this presents will have to be weighed in an innovator's decision about employing IPRs or PGRs for FTO. It remains to be seen whether more motions to amend proposing substitute claims will be filed, and whether the PTAB will change its course from overwhelmingly rejecting such motions, as it has to date.

In addition, assuming arguendo that Oil States holds that IPRs and PGRs are constitutional, an innovator may yet face uncertainty about its ability to seek FTO via IPR or PGR, depending on the outcome of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe/Allergan Restasis case involving Native American tribal sovereign immunity, and related legislative proposals. If Allergan's sale of its relevant patents to St. Regis is upheld before the PTAB, and if Congress does not legislatively abrogate Native American tribal immunity in IPRs and PGRs, patent owners may have an option that would render their patents "bulletproof" to IPRs and PGRs. That being said, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., proposed a bill on Oct. 5, 2017, that would prohibit an "Indian tribe" from asserting sovereign immunity as a defense to an IPR.20 That bill, however, does not address PGRs or the assertion of sovereign immunity by states, or state universities, which has already been addressed by the PTAB.21 And notwithstanding state sovereign immunity, a question remains whether Congress can prohibit the type of agreement entered into by the St. Regis Mohawk tribe and Allergan in the first place.

An Innovator's Freedom-to-Operate Tool

Using IPRs and/or PGRs requires careful consideration, and every case must be weighed on its unique facts of business objectives, stage of product development, timing, and potential estoppel, to name a few. Although a less expensive and more speedy option than litigation, it is prudent not to treat IPRs and PGRs as a quick hatchet job on the competition, and especially so for innovator-petitioners. But in the right circumstances, following a detailed and careful analysis of points raised above, innovators may decide that IPRs and PGRs have their place after all, and can in fact smooth the path to FTO.

Footnotes

1 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11) and 35 U.S.C. §326(a)(11).

2 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and 35 U.S.C. §321(a).

3 35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1).

4 35 U.S.C. §315(b).

5 35 U.S.C. §315(e) and 35 U.S.C. §325(e). See also, 35 U.S.C. §325(d) permitting the PTAB to exercise its discretion to deny an IPR or PGR petition if "the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office." There was concern even while the AIA was under debate in Congress that the new post-grant proceedings could be abused and result in harassment of patent owners by the filing of serial petitions. 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was included as a way for the PTAB to keep that from happening. The PTAB has also denied petitions when it considers the petitioner is using previous institution decisions and Patent Owner Preliminary Responses as a "road map" to address gaps. "We disfavor allowing follow-on petitions that attempt to fix deficiencies in a previous petition that were explained in a previous decision on institution." Synaptics, Inc. v. Amkor Tech. Inc., IPR2017-00085, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. April 18, 2017). See also Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. July 7, 2014)(Informative Opinion); ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 25, 2013) (Informative Opinion).

6 35 U.S.C § 321, 37 C.F.R. §42.201 and §42.202.

7 35 U.S.C. §311(b).

8 35 U.S.C. §311(c).

9 35 U.S.C. §315(b).

10 157 CONG. REC. S5411 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Hatch); H.Rept. 112-98: "the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation."

11 154 CONG. REC. 9988 (2008) (statement of Sen. Kyl).

12 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48, 758 (Aug. 14, 2012).

13 Finnegan research as of Oct. 7, 2017. List of patent owner petitioners in 207 representative bio/pharm IPRs used for calculations: Actelion Pharms., Acura Pharms., Aker BioMarine AS, Alkermes, Allergan, Ambry Genetics, ApaTech, Aragen Bioscience, Ariosa Diagnostics, Benitch Biopharma, BioDelivery Sciences, BioMarin Pharm, BioReference Labs., BMS, Boehringer, Cepheid, Eli Lilly, Elysium Health, Endo DAC, Endo Pharms., Enzo Life Sciences, Enzymotec, Ethicon, Forty Seven, Inc., Galderma SA, Genzyme Corp., Gilead Sciences, GSK, Gnosis Bioresearch SA, Gnosis S.P.A., Guardant Health, Horizon Discovery, Horizon Therapeutics, Illumina, Inc., Intelligent BioSystems, Int'l Flavors, Johns Hopkins Univ., Kamada Ltd., Kite Pharm., Luminex Corp., Merck, Merial, MonoSol Rx, Noven Pharms., Novo Nordisk, Oxford Nanopores, Panacea Biotech, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Phigenix, Prism Pharms., Purdue Pharms., Qiagen, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Sequenom, St. Jude Medical, Teoxane and Thermo Fisher Scientific.

14 68% (3833/5607) IPR petition grant rate, and at least 65% rate of all instituted claims unpatentable (1153/1771). Another 16% of Final Written Decisions included at least one claim held unpatentable (mixed result). USPTO statistics as of Sept. 2017, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Trial_Stats_2017-09-30.pdf

15 Time will tell if the Federal Circuit en banc Aqua Product decision, decided October 4, 2017, changes this. See Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177, 2017 WL 4399000 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017).

16 35 U.S.C. §314(d) and 35 U.S.C. §324(e); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016).

17 The petitioner can raise §112 enablement and written description issues to dislodge the patentee of an earlier priority date in both IPRs and PGRs. See Butamax Advanced Biofuels L.L.C. v. Gevo Inc., IPR2013-00539 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015) (establishing that the claim limitations contained in the challenged claim did not have written description support all the way back to the earliest two priority applications, resulting in establishing a later priority date).

18 Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is the current Federal Circuit position: that petitioner estoppel only applies to instituted grounds.

19 35 U.S.C. §315(e) and 35 U.S.C. §325(e).

20 Senator McCaskill's bill S.___, introduced Oct. 5, 2017, "to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in inter partes review of patents."

21 Covidien LP v. Univ. of Florida, IPR2016-01274, IPR2016-01275, IPR2016-01276, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017), dismissing three separate IPR petitions challenging patents owned by the University of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated because the University was deemed an arm of the State and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity.

Reactive Surfaces Ltd. v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2017-00572, Paper 32 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2017),
dismissed only with respect to Univ. of Minnesota, case continues with Toyota.

Neochord, Inc. v. Univ. of Maryland, IPR2016-00208, Paper 28 (P.T.A.B. May 23, 2017), entire case
dismissed because Univ. of Maryland retained an interest in the patent.

Originally published in Law360 on October 30, 2017.

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
2 Jan 2019, Conference, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a Silver sponsor of the 36th annual National CLE Conference. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will co-present “The Interplay Between IPRs and Other PTAB Trial Proceedings and Litigation—Strategy and Lessons.

6 Jan 2019, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan attorneys Virginia Carron and Jessica Marks will consider patent eligibility issues with engineered natural products.

16 Jan 2019, Conference, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan partner Lionel Lavenue will present “The Technology Accelerates: IP Issues at the Cutting Edge” during the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Aviation Law & Insurance Symposium.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Nutter McClennen & Fish 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