License Review Sample Clauses

License Review. SunEdison and SSL shall hold annual Licensed IP review meetings on or near each anniversary of the Effective Date (or such other mutually agreed date) to discuss any issues relating to this Agreement, any proposed revisions to the scope of this Agreement, additions of new patents and know-how not otherwise considered an Improvement, and whether any patents related to the License Field owned by or among the SunEdison Group or the SSL Group which have been filed or issued since the prior Licensed IP review meeting shall be excluded from the definition of Licensed SunEdison IP and Licensed SSL IP, respectively, with SunEdison and SSL representing their respective Group at such meetings. All such patents shall be included in the Licensed IP unless SunEdison or SSL refuses to include any such patent to the Licensed SunEdison IP or Licensed SSL IP, respectively.
License Review. SunEdison and SSL shall hold annual License IP Review Meetings to discuss any issues relating to this Agreement, any proposed revisions to the scope of this Agreement, additions of new patents and know-how not otherwise considered an Improvement, and whether any patents falling within the field owned by and between those companies set forth in this Agreement which were granted shall be excluded from the definition of SunEdison Licensed IP and SSL Licensed IP, respectively, with SunEdison and SSL representing their wholly owned subsidiaries and affiliates at such meetings. All such patents shall be included to the Licensed IP unless SunEdison or SSL refuses to include any such patent to the SunEdison Licensed IP or SSL Licensed IP, respectively.
License Review. Upon reasonable notice to you, you agree to grant ThoughtSpot access to the Software to verify your use. You will reasonably cooperate with ThoughtSpot and will promptly pay directly to ThoughtSpot any underpayments revealed by such review.
License Review. Upon reasonable notice, you agree to grant PurpleCube access to the Software to verify your use. You will reasonably cooperate with PurpleCube and promptly pay directly to PurpleCube for any underpayments revealed by such review, especially about terms set out in Section 3.2.
License Review. Customer shall ensure that use of the Software is consistent with the applicable Scope of Use. Cultivate, may, upon reasonable notice, review Customer’s records of Software usage to verify that Customer has: (a) used the Software in the manner authorized herein; (b) paid all applicable fees; and (c) otherwise complied with this Agreement and Order Form(s). In general, Cultivate does not require physical access to Customer's premises, devices or systems for such review. If Customer exceeds the Scope of Use, Customer will promptly pay Cultivate all underpayments.

Related to License Review

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Commercialization Reports Throughout the term of this Agreement and during the Sell-Off Period, and within thirty (30) days of December 31st of each year, Company will deliver to University written reports of Company’s and Sublicensees’ efforts and plans to develop and commercialize the innovations covered by the Licensed Rights and to make and sell Licensed Products. Company will have no obligation to prepare commercialization reports in years where (a) Company delivers to University a written Sales Report with active sales, and (b) Company has fulfilled all Performance Milestones. In relation to each of the Performance Milestones each commercialization report will include sufficient information to demonstrate achievement of those Performance Milestones and will set out timeframes and plans for achieving those Performance Milestones which have not yet been met.

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether: a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.

  • License Compliance HP may audit Customer compliance with the software license terms. Upon reasonable notice, HP may conduct an audit during normal business hours (with the auditor’s costs being at HP’s expense). If an audit reveals underpayments then Customer will pay to HP such underpayments. If underpayments discovered exceed five (5) percent of the contract price, Customer will reimburse HP for the auditor costs.

  • 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.

  • Sublicense Requirements Any Sublicense: (A) is subject to this Agreement; (B) will reflect that any sublicensee will not further sublicense; (C) will prohibit sublicensee from paying royalties to an escrow or other similar account; (D) will expressly include the provisions of Sections 8, 9, and 10 for the benefit of Stanford; and (E) will include the provisions of Section 4.4 and require the transfer of all the sublicensee’s obligations to *****, including the payment of royalties specified in the Sublicense, to Stanford or its designee, if this Agreement is terminated. If the sublicensee is a spin-out from *****, ***** must guarantee the sublicensee’s performance with respect to the payment of Stanford’s share of Sublicense royalties.

  • 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.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

  • Development Reports Beginning six months after Effective Date and ending on the date of first commercial sale of a Licensed Product in the United States, LICENSEE shall report to Cornell progress covering LICENSEE's (and Affiliate's and Sublicensee's) activities and efforts in the development of rights granted to LICENSEE under this Agreement for the preceding six months. The report shall include, but not be limited to, activities and efforts to develop and test all Licensed Products and obtain governmental approvals necessary for marketing the same. Such semi-annual reports shall be due within sixty days (60) of the reporting period and shall use the form as provided herein as Appendix C.