United States: A Handy Guide To Oil States, The Case That Has Captivated The Patent Community

What is at issue in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene's Energy Group LLC?1 The constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings.

IPRs—increasingly popular since being established in 2012 by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act—give third parties a speedy route to attempt invalidating existing patents as obvious or lacking novelty, based solely on earlier patents or printed publications. These administrative proceedings represent an attractive alternative to federal court for many parties challenging patents: They can be faster, procedurally more straightforward and less expensive than district court invalidity challenges.

Hard numbers underscore how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has shifted the landscape in the past five years as the number of IPRs has continued to grow. This year alone 647 new IPRs were filed as of mid-October. And, if an IPR is instituted, the PTAB cancels claims at a high rate.

But the fact that IPRs take place entirely inside the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office forms the basis of Oil States Energy Services' Supreme Court challenge. In its petition for certiorari, Oil States argues that IPRs run afoul of the Constitution by allowing private property rights to be extinguished in a non-Article III forum lacking a jury. Not so, responds both Greene's Energy and the USPTO, which contend that patents involve "public rights"—so having the USPTO decide whether a patent was properly granted is constitutional. More than that, they assert, it makes perfect sense to allow the USPTO to make this decision—patents are the USPTO's reason for being, and it has the technical expertise needed to reach sound decisions.

Having heard the opening salvoes, the Supreme Court took up the case, and we now have Oil States' opening brief, the respondents' briefs and nearly 60 amicus briefs on file. All eyes are on this case, and this is an overview of the merits briefs filed by the parties, their supporters and amici supporting neither party.

Oil States: IPRs Violate Right to Jury Trial

Oil States' opening brief in the U.S. Supreme Court relies heavily on the pre-AIA history of patent adjudication.2 Oil States first argues that IPRs conflict with constitutional guarantees, namely, the Seventh Amendment's right to trial by jury, in combination with the historical precedent of Article III courts as the forum for patent invalidation. For example, Oil States relies heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc.,3 where the court wrote that "[patent] infringement cases today must be tried to a jury, as their predecessors were more than two centuries ago."

Oil States then argues that IPRs do not fall under the public-rights doctrine. This doctrine holds that rights that are integrally related to government regulatory schemes are best and properly adjudicated by the relevant agency. Oil States reasons that patent disputes have historically been resolved by courts. It says patent owners must enforce patent rights in district court without government aid. Oil States argues that patent disputes have not historically been "resolved wholly outside the judicial branch," patent cases do not involve "new statutory obligations," and patent cases are not "essential to a limited regulatory objective."

Oil States concludes by urging that Congress had no basis for giving the USPTO the authority to conduct IPRs. To bolster its stance, it points to Congress' statements that IPRs were needed to overcome inefficiencies in the patent system and the difficulty of challenging "meritless patents" in federal court. According to Oil States, this reflects just the kind of "overreach" that the framers intended to check.

Greene's Energy: IPRs Let USPTO Nix Public Rights

Greene's Energy frames patents as rights grounded in federal law, subject to the power of Congress.,sup>4 Greene's Energy also says patents are "integrally related to particular Federal Government action"—all characteristics of "public rights," citing the Supreme Court's words from Stern v. Marshall.5 Given this public nature, Greene's Energy contends that Congress can provide for nonjudicial correction of errors via limited and specialized proceedings such as IPRs. The proceedings let the USPTO revisit its own decision-making in a narrow capacity by considering questions that do not "inherently or necessarily requir[e] judicial determination," as the Supreme Court said was permitted in Ex parte Bakelite Corp.6

The respondent argues that patents fall under what the Supreme Court in Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.7 called a "particularized area of law," so Congress has leeway to empower non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate. Particularly where Congress has set up a comprehensive regulatory scheme to handle patent applications, including a specialized administrative agency, Article III "does not confer on litigants an absolute right to the plenary consideration of every nature of claim by an Article III court."8

Greene's Energy acknowledges the Seventh Amendment's applicability to issues that an Article III court must handle, but argues it "poses no independent bar" where Congress permissibly charged a non-Article III tribunal with adjudicating an administrative scheme with a statutory cause of action in Granfinanciera SA v. Nordberg.9 To bolster its stance, the respondent recounts the ways Congress has provided for post-issuance review over time, beginning with post-issuance information from holder in 1870, interference proceedings in 1952, ex parte re-examinations in 1980, inter partes re-examinations in 1999 and finally IPRs in 2011. In  sum, Greene's Energy asserts there is nothing unconstitutional about giving the USPTO the chance to revoke public rights it never should have created in the first place.

USPTO: IPRs Don't Run Afoul of Article III or Seventh Amendment

The USPTO shares Greene's Energy's position that patents are public rights, bound up with federal action, for which Congress can set adjudicatory conditions.10 To make its point, the agency cites Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.,11 which says the public-rights doctrine is grounded in historical distinction between inherently judicial matters and those that can be conclusively determined by other branches of government.

For support, the USPTO notes that patent rights "did not exist at common law," citing Gayler v. Wilder.12 Nor have they historically been viewed as any "natural right" of inventors, the USPTO says, citing Graham v. John Deere Co.13 Additionally, the USPTO notes that patent rights come into being when allowed by an agency patent examiner, and no one has called for involving an Article III court at issuance. Given Congress' "authority to delegate to the USPTO the power to issue patents in the first instance, it would be odd indeed if Congress could not authorize the USPTO to reconsider its own decisions," the USPTO says, citing MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.14

The federal respondent also brings legislative history to bear, asserting that Congress revised post-issuance review "to improve patent quality and restore confidence in the presumption of validity that comes with issued patents in court" in response to the "growing sense" that "questionable patents [were] too easily obtained and [were] too difficult to challenge."

Amicus Briefs

Fifty-eight friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed and are shown in the tabular figures, grouped by support for the petitioner, the respondents or neither party. Here, we summarize major themes found in these briefs, including: Article III concerns and the separation of powers; private versus public rights doctrine; policy questions on fairness, impact and efficiency; and a historical analysis of jury trials and the Seventh Amendment.

Article III and the Separation of Powers

Several amici point to historical precedent holding that only Article III courts may resolve patent disputes, not administrative courts. Many of these briefs point to Murray's Lessee15 to argue that common law courts traditionally heard patent disputes, and that the Constitution does not allow Congress to entrust these disputes to administrative courts.

A recurring theme among many supporting Oil States is that the Constitution requires Article III courts to adjudicate patent disputes because Article III courts historically have done so, and patents are private property rights, so Congress overstepped its authority by granting adjudication powers to part of the USPTO. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, for example, contends that the status of rights—public versus private—determines the procedure for revoking the right, because "[w] ere it otherwise, Congress could transform a right from private to public 'simply by deeming it part of some amorphous 'public right,' [and] Article III would be transformed from the guardian of individual liberty and separation of powers into mere wishful thinking.'"16 Along similar lines, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or IEEE-USA, contends that the IPR statute's mandate giving PTAB decisions preclusive effects on Article III courts effectively "dispens[es] with rights otherwise available in Article III court adjudications [which] violates separation of powers."17

Intel reached a different conclusion, arguing that IPRs do not "supplant or alter the Judiciary's ultimate review of the validity issues, as the USPTO's conclusions remain subject to judicial review, under the same standards that have long been viewed as adequate to superintend the USPTO's issuance decisions."18

Private Versus Public Rights

One of this case's central disputes turns on whether patents involve private or public rights. Private rights are the property of an individual, and juries typically resolve private property disputes. Public rights, in contrast, belong to the public, but can sometimes be given to individuals by regulatory arms of the government. A jury is not required to resolve disputes over public rights.

Arguing that patents involve private rights, PhRMA cites Section 261 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A. § 261, as support for patents having all the attributes of personal property. Its brief also points out that courts have found common origins for both patents and copyrights, which it says are unquestionably private property. The Internet Association has a different take, describing patents as a type of "public franchise."19

The American Intellectual Property Law Association, or AIPLA, rejects the centrality of the private-public distinction altogether, arguing against "a rigid, binary parsing of the bundle of patent rights," and urging that Congress "acted within its right to 'promote the progress of the useful arts' under Article I."20 Likewise, General Electric discounts the private-public issue and contends an IPR is "an exercise of the executive power—not the judicial power—and thus does not violate Article III of the Constitution, regardless of whether a patent is a public or private right."21

Policy Questions on Fairness, Impact and Efficiency

Several briefs argue in support of IPRs as more efficient and effective forums than district courts for testing patent validity, allowing companies to focus resources on innovation instead of litigation. The PTAB Bar Association characterizes IPRs as "efficient, but limited, procedures to revisit the initial decision to grant patents," addressing the real-word constraints of initial patent examination.22 Given that the USPTO currently examines over 600,000 new patent applications annually, the association asserts that IPRs provide more extensive review of the overburdened USPTO's initial decisions. Other briefs argue that IPRs are intrinsically unfair. Unisone Strategic IP Inc.'s brief, for one, declares that "the PTAB suffers from a structural bias toward over-granting IPR petitions and over-invalidating patents, and cannot fairly adjudicate patent validity."23 In contrast, SAP America favorably spotlights IPRs as "substantively identical to reexamination, enforcing the same patentability conditions and issuing the same certificates canceling, amending, adding or confirming claims."24

Some amici argue that IPRs devalue patents. US Inventor Inc., for instance, posits that the availability of IPRs have reduced the incentive to invent because they "suddenly and drastically increased the probability that a contested patent will be held invalid."25 In contrast, Knowledge Ecology International draws attention to "the negative consequences of granting patents that do not meet inventive step or which are not novel."26 AARP describes IPRs as part of Congress' desire to address negative effects of patent litigation on investment and innovation.27

Other briefs comment on particular aspects of IPRs as implemented. LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. argues, for example, that the burden of the flawed IPR system falls heavier on smaller businesses, since the ease of mounting IPR challenges makes enforcement unduly risky.28 3M predicts that the USPTO would improve the patent-granting process when faced with the threat of de novo review by Article III courts, because these courts would improve the "consistency, reliability and fairness" of patent disputes.29 In contrast, IEEE-USA raises concerns about IPR limits on discovery as "undermin[ing] substantive litigants' rights that can only be available in an Article III court."

Jury Trials and The Seventh Amendment

Several briefs reach to early American jurisprudence to support the position that IPRs violate the Seventh Amendment. Some note early cases where juries decided patent validity in the English Commonwealth and American Colonies.

Many argue that Seventh Amendment jurisprudence requires that the types of cases tried before juries at the time of the country's founding must be tried before juries today. For example, one amicus contends that "[r]ecords from the 18th century are unequivocal and demonstrate that juries decide validity questions."30 This is echoed by another amici advancing the proposition that "the framers considered granting the legislature power over jury authority and rejected it," pointing to state constitutions, early legislation such as the Stamp Act, and the writings of Alexander Hamilton and other Founders.31

Nonetheless, other amicus filers see IPRs fitting within a "classic administrative or regulatory scheme of the kind this Court hasrepeatedly held legitimate."32 For example, Dell, Facebook and others assert that "[p]rior to the Founding—and for more than a century thereafter—the Crown's Privy Council had broad authority to revoke patents outside of a judicial proceeding, including for a variety of reasons related to patentability, such as lack of novelty."33

All these themes will probably come into play during oral argument before the Supreme Court on Nov. 27.


1 Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene's Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (June 12, 2017).

2 Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, petitioner's brief filed, 2017 WL 3713059 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2017).

3 517 U.S. 370 (1996).

4 Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, respondent's brief filed, 2017 WL 4805231 (U.S. Oct. 23, 2017).

5 564 U.S. 462 (2011).

6 279 U.S. 438 (1929).

7 59 U.S. 272 (1855).

8 Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986).

9 492 U.S. 33 (1989).

10 Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, federal respondent's brief filed, 2017 WL 4805230 (U.S. Oct. 23, 2017).

11 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

12 51 U.S. 477 (1851).

13 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

14 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 292 (2016).

15 59 U.S. 272.

16 Brief for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3888202 (Aug. 31, 2017).

17 Brief for IEEE-USA as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3888205 (Aug. 31, 2017).

18 Brief for Intel et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712 (Aug. 31, 2017).

19 Brief for Internet Association et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712 (Aug. 31, 2017).

20 Brief for American Intellectual Property Law Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3888203 (Aug. 31, 2017).

21 Brief for General Electric Co. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 5000246 (Oct. 30, 2017).

22 Brief for Patent Trial and Appeal Board Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3867608 (Aug. 31, 2017).

23 Brief for Unisone Strategic IP Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3867609 (Aug. 30, 2017).

24 Brief for SAP America et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 4918195 (Oct. 25, 2017).

25 Brief for Amici Curiae US Inventor Inc. et al. in Support of Petitioner, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3774492 (Aug. 29, 2017).

26 Brief for Amicus Curiae Knowledge Ecology International in Support of Respondents, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 4946907 (Oct. 26, 2017).

27 Brief for AARP and AARP Foundation as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712 (Oct. 30, 2017).

28 Brief for Liquidpower Specialty Products Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3822694 (Aug. 31, 2017).

29 Brief for 3M Co. et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3888218 (Aug. 31, 2017).

30 Brief for H. Tomás Gomez-Arostegui and Sean Bottomley as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3634324 (Aug. 17, 2017).

31 Brief for Amicus Curiae The Civil Jury Project at New York University School of Law in Support of Neither Side, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 3822695 (Aug. 31, 2017).

32 Brief for Public Knowledge et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712 (Oct. 30, 2017).

33 Brief for Dell Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene's Energy Grp., No. 16-712, 2017 WL 4946908 (Oct. 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.

Events from this Firm
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.

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

As a part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Erika Arner and Michael Flibbert

will discuss best practices for preparing a PTAB case for appeal to the Federal Circuit.

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

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Shana Cyr and Mark Feldstein will provide essential updates on FDA practice and patent law relating to biologics and biosimilars.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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