Initial Proposals. Within one hundred, eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of this MOU, the parties may submit initial proposals for a successor agreement. And within ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the agreement, the parties may commence negotiations on a successor agreement.
Initial Proposals. Prior to the expiration of this contract, COSATS and OSA shall present their “sunshine” proposals for a successor agreement in time for initial presentation at a scheduled OSA Board Meeting. COSATS’s proposal shall be agendized if submitted no later than 9 days prior to the meeting.
Initial Proposals. First Meeting A mutually convenient meeting shall be held no later than seventy (70) days prior to the expiration of the contract at which time both parties shall meet and exchange initial proposals.
Initial Proposals. No later than the regularly scheduled DCP Board meeting in January of the calendar year in which this Agreement expires, SBEU shall submit its initial proposal for a successor agreement. DCP shall submit its initial proposal for a successor agreement at the next regular DCP Board meeting.
Initial Proposals. No later than the regularly scheduled GPA Board meeting in January or January 31 of the calendar year in which this Agreement expires, whichever occurs first, SDEA shall submit its initial proposal for a successor agreement. GPA shall submit its initial proposal for a successor agreement at the next regular GPA Board meeting, but no later than March 31, of the calendar year in which this Agreement expires.
Initial Proposals. No later than the scheduled Board Meeting in May of the year in which this agreement expires, the Union shall submit its initial proposals for reopeners or a successor agreement to the Board of Trustees.
Initial Proposals. No later than the scheduled HTVCS Board Meeting in March of the calendar year in which this Agreement expires, SDEA and HTVCS shall submit its initial proposal for a successor agreement.
Initial Proposals. The subject of exhaustion of rights and parallel importation was discussed in the TRIPS Negotiating Group (TNG) on a substantial number of occasions during the Uruguay Round. It is evident from those discussions that delegations perceived the subject matter of importance, and had different views regarding the appro- priate outcome. It is important to note that contemporaneous discussions on this subject matter were taking place at WIPO in the context of patent law harmoniza- tion negotiations throughout much of the TRIPS negotiations. In neither forum 216 Report of Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx to Committee on International Trade Law of the International Law Association, noted in Xxxxxx, First Report, Xxxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, First Report (Final) to the Committee on International Trade Law of the International Law Association on the Subject of Parallel Importation,1 J. Int’l Econ. L. 607 (1998). 217 See Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxxx, Parallelimporte im Patent-, Urheber- und Muster-und Modellrecht aus europarechtlicher und vo¨ lkerrechtlicher Sicht, in X. Xxxxxx (edit.), Conflits entre importations paralle`les et proprie´te´ intellectuelle?, Librairie Xxxx, Xxxxxx 1996, p. 29 et seq. 218 Article 28, Decision 85, provided:
