Inter Partes Review Sample Clauses

Inter Partes Review. The parties agree that within 5 days after the Effective Date: (a) If the US PTAB has not yet acted on the Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Lombard on May 6, 2013 related to the Jervis Patent (the “IPR Petition”), Lombard will notify the US PTAB that Lombard does not wish to proceed with the IPR Petition and shall request that the proceedings involving the IPR Petition be terminated and (b) If the US PTAB has acted on the IPR Petition, the parties shall prepare and file a written statement under 37 CFR 42.74 indicating that a settlement has been reached, that the settlement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C.§ 327(b) and 37 C.P.R.§ 42.74(c) and request that the proceedings involving the IPR Petition be terminated.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Inter Partes Review. Microsoft and VirnetX shall cooperate (and if necessary, VirnetX will cause SAIC to cooperate) to file in each of the Pending IPRs, a joint motion to terminate with respect to Microsoft Corporation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §317(a) in the form set forth in Exhibit C, and a joint request to keep this agreement confidential pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) in the form set forth in Exhibit D. Microsoft and VirnetX will contact (and if necessary, VirnetX will cause SAIC to contact) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to request permission to file in each of the Pending IPRs the motion and the request within five (5) business days of the filing of the dismissals under Section 5.1, and upon receiving permission, file in each of the Pending IPRs the motion and the request within two (2) business days of the PTAB granting such permission. The parties will work together to modify the motion and request to address any issues raised by the PTAB. If the PTAB denies the motions to terminate, the Parties will take such other permitted steps to have Microsoft withdraw from the Pending IPRs. For example, Microsoft will not actively seek to participate in the Pending IPRs, and will not be bound by the results of the Pending IPRs. This covenant shall not be construed as preventing Microsoft from complying with any court or Patent Office order or applicable law.
Sample 1Sample 2
Inter Partes Review. In the event the Parties agree to file for an Inter Partes Review with respect to any Patent Rights (“IPR”), MIMEDX, in consultation with Turn, shall assume primary responsibility to litigate the IPR using legal counsel mutually agreed upon by the parties using reasonable efforts. MIMEDX shall pay for the litigation expenses and shall thereafter invoice Turn for fifty percent (50%) of such litigation expenses as they are incurred, and Turn shall pay such invoiced amounts to MIMEDX within thirty (30) days of receipt of such invoice.
Sample 1
Inter Partes Review. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of each challenged claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter
Sample 1

Related to Inter Partes Review

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

  • BUSINESS REVIEWS Supplier must perform a minimum of one business review with Sourcewell per contract year. The business review will cover sales to Participating Entities, pricing and contract terms, administrative fees, sales data reports, performance issues, supply issues, customer issues, and any other necessary information.

  • Periodic Reviews During January of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall review Executive's Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and additional benefits then being provided to Executive. Following each such review, the Company may in its discretion increase the Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and benefits; however, the Company shall not decrease such items during the period Executive serves as an employee of the Company. Prior to November 30th of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall communicate in writing the results of such review to Executive.

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Prior Review (a) With respect to each contract for the employment of consulting firms estimated to cost the equivalent of $100,000 or more, the procedures set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 (other than the third subparagraph of paragraph 2(a)) and 5 of Appendix 1 to the Consultant Guidelines shall apply. (b) With respect to each contract for the employment of individual consultants estimated to cost the equivalent of $50,000 or more, the qualifications, experience, terms of reference and terms of employment of the consultants shall be furnished to the Association for its prior review and approval. The contract shall be awarded only after the said approval shall have been given.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!