India: Living The Mirage: Theranos' Voyage From Bloom To Doom

Last Updated: 26 June 2019
Article by Harshada Wadkar and Akanksha Badika

From being the youngest self-made billionaire to being the CEO of a company hanging on by threads, Elizabeth Holmes had witnessed her rise and fall so transiently that the world over was scandalised. Right from a tender age, the mercenary and determined Holmes had always tried to make money by selling C++ compilers to Chinese schools[1] and thereafter had a vision of creating a technology miniaturizing traditional labs in portable forms to test blood samples, which would change the world to befit the needs of mankind. With a finger prick and a drop of blood, she claimed that the technology ('Edison') which she created at Theranos could carry out 200 types of tests, something which sounded impossible to the world, yet was too utopic to become unrealistic.

To chase her dream of bringing such miniaturized technology into the health care sector, she dropped out of Stanford University at the age of 19 and began working on Theranos mission right from 2003. The company claimed to have performed as many as 70 different tests from a single draw of 25 to 50 microliters collected in a tiny vial the size of an electric fuse, which Holmes had dubbed a "nanotainer." Such a volley of tests with conventional techniques would require numerous tubes of blood, each containing 3,000- to 5,000-microliter samples[2]. To further her goals, she began raising money and by 2005, she raised about $ 6 billion. By 2010, she was able to secure partnerships with Walgreens and Safeway. As a staunch supporter of Steve Jobs, rather than just following his ideals, she began living him right from initial years of Theranos, new partnerships meant Edison should be able to perform more than one class of tests, Theranos developed the minilab, which was a miniscule version of the conventional labs, which was nicknames as "4s" just like the iPhone model. Early 2012, witnessed Theranos taking over a blood testing at Safeway employee health clinic as a beta run. Even after protests from scientists and the world over, Theranos was valued at $9 billion by February, 2014. Shortly after, John Carreyrou – an investigative reporter working for the Wall Street Journal published an article to highlight the company's struggle for blood testing, marking the first downfall of a billion-dollar company that was too determined to bring a change when the gap between the carpeted world and the real world became too narrow to cover.

Shortly, the company's COO, Sunny Balwani was removed and Holmes was the only top executive and by 2017, the world witnessed crashing down of the Silicon Valley Unicorn start-up when Holmes was banned from lab testing industry and settled with the FDA for $30, 000 and was asked not to operate or own a clinical lab till 2019[3]. She had a vision to help the mankind with its miniaturized technology, named the Edison which looked similar in size to bread making machine[4], however the claims she made of her technology fell short of reality, the Edison was capable of performing few tests rather than 200 which she claimed to the world over. Moreover, her finger prick technology had inaccuracies, which unravelled shortly as scientists smelt suspicion in the way Edison worked. With a secretive approach and her tireless determination towards Theranos, she did not go out for vacations, nor took any holidays and when asked about getting married, she would always reply in her pretentious heavy voice, that she was married to Theranos.


The following timeline explicates the Theranos' Voyage from being a start up to being a Billion Dollar company and thereafter, being dissolved.




Holmes Dropped Out of Stanford, Founded Theranos


Raised Capital of about $ 6 billion to live her vision


Development of Theranos 1.0, a catridge and reader System based on microfluidics and biochemistry


Tested Premature Theranos 1.0 on cancer patients, Suing 3 employees for infringement of inteelectual property; Development of a new prototype named Edison.


Approaching Walgreens and Safeway for partnership


Creation of MiniLab to perform more than one type of tests


Surprise checks by CMS; Rising Concerns over Theranos technology


Ian Gibbons, chief Scientist at Theranos, committed suicide; Premature Lauching of the 4s model, though many were concerned about the underfunctioning of it.


Theranos Valued at $ 9 billion; Holmes had a net worth of almost $5 billion, became the cover for Fortune and Forbes


Carreyrou began investing about the Theranos technology; Theranos got its first FDA Approval


Regulators found problems with Theranos technology; SEC started investigating into the company; Walgreen ended partnership with Theranos and closed all centres at Arizona and California


Made a deal with Fortress Investment Group for $100 million to get it through 2018


SEC charges Theranos, Holmes and Balwani with fraud; Holmes lost control of Theranos, had to return millions of shares; Holmes and Balwani were charged for Massive Fraud with fine and cost of not being a director for 10 years of any publicly traded company; September 2018, Theranos was shut down for good, and Holmes was also charged with 11 criminal offences, including wire fraud and conspiracy

Patent Analytics

Theranos kept on filing patents on a technology was not at all effectual in delivering results which Holmes claimed to, all kudos to the loopholes in the US Patent system which virally let Holmes take over and lure potential investors into a company built around patents on a hollow technology. It is pretty interesting how such unrealistic inventions did really materialise into actual patents, on brief history of patent applications, one can easily get into the ambiguities in the requirements of the US patent system. An invention has to meet substantive conditions in order to be patent-eligible. One of the conditions is that the invention must be useful (the others are that the invention must be of patent-eligible subject matter, new, and non-obvious).[5] The usefulness requirement is said to be met if the invention has an industrial application or if it provides some benefit to the public[6]. An invention does not need to be the best way to provide the stated benefit, but an invention or technology that does not work is certainly not useful and hence not patent-eligible.

When an inventor files an application for a patent, the Patent Office must presume that the invention works to provide the stated benefit.[7] To reject an application because the invention is inoperable, the Patent Office must provide evidence showing that a person with knowledge in the technical field would reasonably doubt that it works.[8] Thus, if an inventor files an application for an invention that does not yet work, it is quite possible that the Patent Office will not challenge it as inoperable[9]. The utility requirement requires that the invention should work and the enablement requirement, under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, requires that the invention should be described in depth for any person in the field to use and build the same[10], if the applicant can't build it in limited time, the enablement requirement is not satisfied. Though examiners do not have much time to carry out complex experiments to see whether the inventions actually work, yet such grants can prove to be fatal when the USPTO fulfils a fantasy which Holmes had drafted through the first patent application in 2003, when she was 19. This can be illustrated by Richard Fuisz,

Elizabeth's childhood neighbour, getting his patent registered which Carreyrou called as 'Theranos Killer' much before than Theranos could ever patent it, a technology which does blood analysis and transfers the data to physicians. The Patent bargain system that mandates the inventor to sufficiently disclose the invention, enables the public to understand how the invention works, giving the patent holder right to exclusivity[11], however the Theranos case study has proven to be a mockery to this system, where Elizabeth is being so secretive of her technology that even employees have been provided with limited information.

Figure 1

If one looks at the Figure 1, it is pretty clear that most of the priority wise applications were filed by the end of 2013, where the company had almost reached up to $9 billion mark, with its vision to miniaturize the health care technology with about just one droplet of a blood to conduct 70 variants of tests. In 2016, just 2 were filed, as the Wall Street Journal article just made it impossible for Theranos to survive, with a stringent trade secret policy, scientists became suspicious about the automation and miniaturization and the revolutionary technology which can conduct about 70 different tests with just microns of blood samples.

The demise of a $9-billion-dollar company had already begun by 2015, as can be inferred from Figure 2, the highest number of application were filed in the year 2014, where there were high chances of acceptances due to increased goodwill as Elizabeth Holmes bloomed with a net worth of about $5 billion, which diminished gradually from 2015 to just 1 in 2019.

IPC Class



Investigating or analysing materials by specific methods


Digital computers in general


Data switching networks


Apparatus for enzymology or microbiology


Automatic analysis not limited to methods or materials

The top IPC classes as depicted by Figure 3 showcase the top technologies covered by Theranos patents. Table 2 gives definitions of the corresponding IPC classes. It shows the broad technologies Theranos tried to protect through its inventions.

The highest number of patent applications have been filed in USA, as it's the home country for Theranos, sufficiently higher number of applications have also been filed in Europe, Australia, Korea, and China as can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4

All these figures and tables have depicted that the year for Theranos to bloom was in 2014 wherein it had captured the maximum possible market and its stock prices had shown a remarkable hike. The downfall began from 2016 when a Wall Street Journal article was published by Carreyrou, the author of Bad Blood. That article had doomed Theranos, as even after repeated defences and FDA approvals the company was not able to convince scientists and other counterparts that the technology it had invented really changed this world.

Patent Battles

The myth that Theranos had a hit a boom on the basis of a revolutionary technology was no longer accepted, the way Holmes deceived the stakeholders. The investors do highlight her persuading skills and determination to change the world, however getting Patents to lure them emphasized how far she can go for her dream to become a reality. Her Patent battles were mostly fought by the top most lawyer in Silicon Valley, Mr. David Boies, who also defended her in suits by patent holders and maintained the hollow status quo which she had claimed to the world over[12]. Mr. Boies was no longer in conventional client-firm relationship with Theranos as he had accepted stock in place of his legal fee, yet the in-house legal team were incapable of having much knowledge about the firm's affairs due to the toxic culture, an excessively authoritative leader and an overwhelming cult of secrecy, yet Boeis acted as a linchpin of Theranos[13]. Because of his admiration for Holmes and what her company is trying to do, Boies said, he agreed to personally represent Theranos in its first challenge from patent holders claiming infringement. It was something of a coming-of-age ritual for tech startups as what she claimed to have invented was something which already existed, the only advance being the miniaturization and optimizing chemistry which made it stand apart. In a rare - if not unprecedented - route this past March, the patent holders unconditionally surrendered midtrial, stipulating to the invalidity of their own patent. As a kicker they agreed – though the presiding judge would have been powerless to order such a thing himself – to bring no additional patent suits against Theranos for five years.

The biggest Patent battle that Theranos ever witnessed was with Richar Fuisz, her childhood neighbour who was too startled by her success and the fact that she never consulted him as he was the only person in her vicinity who was so much engrossed into the medical devices, troubled him. In Theranos Inc. and Elizabeth Holmes v. Fuisz Pharma LLC & Ors., Theranos alleged various patent and state law claims (one in California and the other in Delaware) against the defendants concerning US patent no. 7,824,612 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said patent') based on theories of invalidity and unenforceability, in California action, Holmes alleged that Joseph Fuisz, a lawyer, Richard's son had access to Mc Dermott's documents prior IP for Theranos, who had earlier filed patents on behalf of Theranos, thereby seeking correction on inventorship on the said Patent. The said patent reads as: Bodily Fluid Analyzer, and System Including Same and Method for Programming Same. The four-page Delaware Complaint alleged generally that "Theranos has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patent under 35 U.S.C. [section] 271 by making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing, and/or exporting without authority, personalized biomonitoring and informatics systems to monitor the effects of prescription medicines (the `Theranos accused devices')." As per the US Patent Local Rule 3-1[14], the one claiming infringement has to crystallize the theories in the case earlier and to adhere them and disclose the facts known to them in pre-filing inquiry to provide a reasonable defense opportunity to the defendant[15] Theranos has alleged the contention of Fuisz are non sensical and the limitation identified has no relationship to the claim element cited, moreover the compliance required under PLR 3-1 (b) and (c) have not been adhered to. Theranos also claimed that the parrot language used by Fuisz has made the response on belief and information, which is insufficient to shoe the identification of "specific limitation" showing that they did not conduct prior inquiry. Fuisz replied stating that the claims asserted were presumptive. Fuisz further opposed the Motion on the ground that discovery should not be stayed because "Theranos technical information goes to the heart of its inventorship, damages and unfair competition claims it has affirmatively asserted against Fuisz Pharma." They also argued that because Theranos initiated litigation in the first instance, Fuisz is thereby "entitled to technical information about the conception and reduction to practice of the any Theranos technology that allegedly uses the '612 Patent"[16].The court had refused Theranos' claim to substitute the inventorship on the said patent.

With such struggles and roadblocks when Theranos just began with constructing its road to success, Elizabeth Holmes could not deceive scientists further than she every time claimed to. It was not just the patent battles which seemed an obstacle but the time commitment that she required every employee to give to Theranos, seemed a lot more than required[17].

Trademarks Battle

Trademarks for NANOTAINER also seemed a far-fetched dream when Becton, Dickinson and Company alleged Theranos of trademark infringement for MICROTAINER, a trademark registered since 1945, opposed Theranos while registering NANOTAINER in the US Trademark Office[18].

With a host of difficulties, Elizabeth finally gave up in 2017 when she was charged with massive fraud and was banned from the lab industry till 2019.


Theranos' Voyage, which began with so much of enthusiasm about miniaturising health care technology and bringing a change to the world, did not end well. The company began its winding up procedures in 2018 when all attempts to revamp its bankruptcy failed in 2017 after signing up with Fortress Investment Group, the company could never have saved itself after such deception as doomsday seemed inevitable. With a life span of about 15 years, Theranos duped all its stakeholders without raising their eye brows about the consequences of their attempted audacity about their finger prick blood testing technology which they claimed could run 200 variants of tests. Currently, Holmes and Balwani are facing trial for a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. What else could be the fate of a Silicon Valley start-up that tried to revolutionise technology and ended up misleading investors based on their patents?

In this age of technology where Uber and Apple have thrived and established monopolies across global markets based on their patented inventions, it's a disgrace to even get reminded of the frivolous hypothetical leaps made by Theranos. Tech companies depend on patents for enhancing their market value, by acquiring and maintaining key Intellectual Property Rights, thereby preventing others from using their inventions. With patent filings in more than 24 countries, Theranos had always aimed to capture global markets and now the company faces numerous charges based on its hollow patents. Holmes leapt over all opportunities to take advantage of every loophole that US Patent system had to offer and misused the patent law which expects every inventor to be honest about working of their invention. The current IP legal systems lack strict enforcement of enablement clause. But such fraudulent acts cannot last forever in any jurisdictions all over the world. Theranos built a mirage, lived it, bloomed till others could live it and finally doomed when the carpeted world could no longer take it.

[1] Avery Hartmans, The rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes, who started Theranos when she was 19 and became the world's youngest female billionaire before it all came crashing down, The Business Insider (April 21, 2018, 06;05 PM),

[2] Roger Parloff, This CEO is out for Blood, Forbes (Jun 12, 2014),

[3] Charlotte Hu & Lydia Ramsey, The rise and fall of Theranos, the blood-testing startup that went from a rising star in Silicon Valley to facing fraud charges over a wild 15-year span, The Business Insider (May 25, 20118, 4: 33 PM),

[4] Alissa Wilkinson, 2 new documentaries pinpoint the uniquely troubling grift of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, Vox (Mar 15, 2019, 1: 50 PM),

[5] 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012)

[6] See In re Fischer, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

[7] See Fregeau v. Mossinghoff, 776 F.2d 1034, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

[8] In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

[9] Michael James, Is the Patent System to Blame for Rise and Fall of Theranos, Michigan Business and Entrepreneurial Law Review (Jan 19, 2019) ,

[10] Joe Meckles, Theranos and the Broken Patent System, Global IP and Technology Law Blog (Mar 11, 2019),

[11] Daniel Nazer, Theranos: How a Broken patent System Sustained its Decade Long Deception, ARS Technica, (Apr 3, 2019, 6: 00 PM),

[12] Nick Stockton, Everything You Need to Know About the Theranos Saga So Far, The Wired ( Apr 5, 2016, 8:00 AM),

[14] P.L.R 3-1. Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions: Not later than 14 days after the Initial Case Management Conference, a party claiming patent infringement shall serve on all parties a "Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions." Separately for each opposing party, the "Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions" shall contain the following information:(b) Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality ("Accused Instrumentality") of each opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or model number, if known. Each method or process shall be identified by name, if known, or by any product, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results in the practice of the claimed method or process;(c) A chart identifying specifically where and how each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed function.

[15] Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 F.Supp.2d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

[16] Theranos, Inc.v. Fuisz Pharma Llc, Case No. 11-cv-05236-YGR, Related Case No. 12-cv-03323-YGR.

[17] Peter Cohan, 4 Startling Insights Into Elizabeth Holmes From Psychiatrist Who's Known Her Since Childhood, Forbes (Feb 17, 2019, 3:42 PM),

[18] Mitchell Stein, United States: NANOTAINER vs. MICROTAINER: Theranos Battles BD Over Trademarks, But FDA Draws First Blood, Mondaq (Nov 9, 2015),

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Vaish Associates Advocates
Intepat IP Services Pvt Ltd
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
United States
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Vaish Associates Advocates
Intepat IP Services Pvt Ltd
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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 (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

To Use 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