We use cookies on our site to analyze traffic, enhance your experience, and provide you with tailored content.

For more information visit our privacy policy.

Scenario 3 Sample Clauses

Scenario 3. PTC exploits the Programme Intellectual Property on a For-Profit Basis by retaining development/commercialization rights to Product in some regions of the World or with respect to some uses of the Product (either alone or in a collaboration with a Distributor or marketing/sales agent under which PTC retains overall control of commercialization)), and outlicenses the Product on an exclusive basis in other regions of the World or with respect to other uses of the Product. a) In this scenario, any consideration from outlicensing (other than debt at arm’s length interest rates or bona fide research funding) shall be divided between the parties according to Base Shares as of effective date of the outlicense. b) In addition, following such outlicense, PTC shall pay milestones and royalties based on scenario 1 for those regions of the World or uses of the Product for which it retains rights, subject to the following adjustments: i) PTC will prepare a written proposal for adjustment to milestones and royalties based on its modeling of the relative values of market share outlicensed vs. market share retained by PTC. (1) The Trust shall consider PTC’s proposal in good faith, and prepare a written counterproposal if it wishes; (2) The parties shall negotiate in good faith for reasonable allocation of relative value of markets based on their proposals; (3) If the parties cannot agree within [**] days, then the matter shall be referred for final determination via arbitration pursuant to Clause 19.3(a). (4) Once the relative value of the markets outlicensed versus the markets retained by PTC is determined, PTC’s obligation to make continuing milestone and royalty payments pursuant to Scenario 1 shall be reduced according to relative value of markets outlicensed versus the markets retained. By way of example, if PTC outlicensed [**] of the market value of a Product, then a milestone payment of $[**] owed under scenario 1 would be reduced to a milestone payment of $[**] under this scenario 3, and a [**]% Net Sales royalty under scenario 1 would become a [**]% Net Sales royalty under this scenario 3.
Scenario 3. If you have a balance of £510, and: your credit limit is £500; your arrears are £50; the minimum payment we ask you for in your statement is £70; and there is a refund to your account of £200 between your statement date and your payment due date; then we will still require you to pay the full minimum payment of £70. We will use both the £200 refund and your £70 payment to reduce your balance.
Scenario 3 vulnerability in a critical device (ICS)
Scenario 3. If the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Claimants with Valid Claims is equal to the Net Settlement Fund, Claimants with Valid Claims shall be paid their Adjusted Amounts. If the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Claimants with Valid Claims exceeds the Net Settlement Fund, then the Adjusted Amount for each Claimant with a Valid Claim shall be the Adjusted Amount decreased to a lower percentage, on a pro-rata basis, until the total of the Adjusted Amounts equals the Net Settlement Fund. In this event, the Adjusted Amounts for each Payment Group will be reduced in a manner that maintains the 10 / 5 / 3 ratio of percentages between Payment Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, as specified in Section 2.4.3 (i-iii) above. To illustrate, if the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Valid Claims were twice the Net Settlement Fund, Claimants in Payment Group 1 would receive 50% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld, Claimants in Payment Group 2 would receive 25% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld, and Claimants in Payment Group 3 would receive 15% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld.
Scenario 3. TCCA has issued a design approval to a Canadian DAH and EASA validation is in progress. The procedure for continued validation is: a. The Canadian DAH will apply for a CAA validation pursuant to the TIP, and provide the CAA with the same documentation and data package provided to EASA; and b. At the discretion of the Canadian DAH, validation may be completed under one of the following alternatives; (i) If the current EASA validation activity for that application will result in an EASA validation design approval issued no later than December 31, 2022, the CAA will take into consideration the completion of the EASA validation activity and issuance of EASA design approval as a basis for the CAA to issue its own approval without further technical involvement by the CAA, Or (ii) If the EASA validation will not be completed by December 31, 2022, the CAA and TCCA will mutually recognize and accept all EASA and TCCA validation decisions made to date and continue to follow or maintain the EASA/TCCA project validation plan to the greatest extent practicable. TCCA and the CAA will follow the validation procedures in the TIP that are applicable to the remaining parts of the project.
Scenario 3. NN’s payment to IPH of royalties on Net Sales of any Niche Candidate with respect to which NN has exercised its Buy-In-Option and IPH has exercised its opt out option pursuant to Subsection 6.5.2 shall be as follows:
Scenario 3. Same population, different data sources (a) One refers to the situation when the same variables or statistics are being estimated by pooling together multiple sources, such as two sample surveys on the same topic, two different types of surveys but with a common subset of variables (such as household income in income surveys versus income in budget/expenditure surveys), or two sources of different types but providing information on a common set of variables (for example, income from interviews versus from administrative sources). In such situations, the pooling essentially involves aggregation by giving weights to different sources in proportion to their expected degrees of reliability. An example of this category can be found in Di Marco (2006). (b) The second type of situation involves pooling of substantively different types of data or indicators so as to construct more complex, composite indicators. The different type of data may come from different sources, or from different parts of the same source - they may even refer to the same individual units at the micro level. Typically, the pooling involves the construction of new variables or estimates for a given sample, rather than of the same measures over different samples. A good example is provided by the construction of indicators of multi-dimensional deprivation from indicators of monetary and non-monetary aspects of poverty (see Xxxxx et al. (2006)).
Scenario 3. Scenario 3 describes 5 km x 5 km region of Xxxxxx in Berlin which is typical residential area. The expected volume of data traffic in this region is estimated relative low compared with other scenarios. Therefore, MCS density refers the lowest value respectively ~0.56 MCSs/km2 . Accordingly, 260 SCSs are considered to be deployed in this scenario resulting in low density of ~10 SCSs/km2.
Scenario 3. For scenario 3, the selection was made in view of the fact, that the Carbon4PUR polyol production shall be constructed as an add-on to a steel mill, i.e., the place where the CO/CO2 waste gases emerge. Thus, the transport of these gases can be avoided. On the other hand the epoxide availability was set as non-mandatory. However, at least an olefin source (chemical site or olefin pipeline) had to be near the steel mill. The distance between the CO source and the olefin source was allowed to be up to 30 km. With these inclusion criteria, five European regions have been identified to be feasible replication sites. These regions are:  The Port of Marseille, which has already been identified in scenario 1 and 2. This location is for sure the most attractive option from the point of view of the Carbon4PUR project partners, as all considerations and studies are focussed on this location, where the industrial partners are co-located. The nominal annual polyol production capacity can be more than 5-fold (277 kt/a) compared to the intended capacity. Both CO/CO2 gas streams and the needed epoxides are available and there is no need to construct an olefin-to-epoxide oxidation plant.  The ArcelorMittal steel mill in the region of Zeeland (Terneuzen/Gent) has a nominal annual polyol production capacity, which is about 25% higher than the ArcelorMittal FOS steel mill at the Port of Marseille. However the distance to the next epoxide source, i.e., DOW Benelux N.V., is about 18 km.  The Duisburg/Essen region has the highest nominal annual polyol production capacity of 685 kt/a and 433 kt/a with emissions from Hüttenwerke Xxxxx Mannesmann GmbH and thyssenkrupp Steel Europe XX Xxxx Schwelgern, respectively. However, the epoxides are only available at a distance of about 45 km, where the Covestro Deutschland AG polyol plant is located. On the other hand, olefins would be available at shorter distance (5-20 km) from the nearby pipelines. However, this would require the construction of an olefin-to-epoxide oxidation plant.  The regions of Amsterdam and Hall are ranked at the lowest within this scenario, as the distance between CO and olefin source are 25 km and 32 km, respectively. As there are no epoxide sources in the near vicinity, the construction of an olefin-to- epoxide oxidation plant would be necessary. Scenarios 2 and 3 are hard to rank against each other. On the one hand, scenario 2 has selected only sites where the epoxides are already available. Thus, the constr...

Related to Scenario 3

  • Geometric visibility The visibility of the illuminating surface, including its visibility in areas which do not appear to be illuminated in the direction of observation considered, shall be ensured within a divergent space defined by generating lines based on the perimeter of the illuminating surface and forming an angle of not less than 5° with the axis of reference of the headlamp.

  • Start-Up and Synchronization Consistent with the mutually acceptable procedures of the Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner, the Developer is responsible for the proper synchronization of the Large Generating Facility to the New York State Transmission System in accordance with NYISO and Connecting Transmission Owner procedures and requirements.

  • Infrastructure Vulnerability Scanning Supplier will scan its internal environments (e.g., servers, network devices, etc.) related to Deliverables monthly and external environments related to Deliverables weekly. Supplier will have a defined process to address any findings but will ensure that any high-risk vulnerabilities are addressed within 30 days.

  • Power Factor Design Criteria Developer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain an effective power delivery at demonstrated maximum net capability at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range established by the Connecting Transmission Owner on a comparable basis, until NYISO has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the New York Control Area on a comparable basis. The Developer shall design and maintain the plant auxiliary systems to operate safely throughout the entire real and reactive power design range. The Connecting Transmission Owner shall not unreasonably restrict or condition the reactive power production or absorption of the Large Generating Facility in accordance with Good Utility Practice.

  • Staffing Plan The Board and the Association agree that optimum class size is an important aspect of the effective educational program. The Polk County School Staffing Plan shall be constructed each year according to the procedures set forth in Board Policy and, upon adoption, shall become Board Policy.

  • Mileage Measurement Where required, the mileage measurement for LIS rate elements is determined in the same manner as the mileage measurement for V&H methodology as outlined in NECA Tariff No. 4.

  • Switching System Hierarchy and Trunking Requirements For purposes of routing PNG traffic to Verizon, the subtending arrangements between Verizon Tandem Switches and Verizon End Office Switches shall be the same as the Tandem/End Office subtending arrangements Verizon maintains for the routing of its own or other carriers’ traffic (i.e., traffic will be routed to the appropriate Verizon Tandem subtended by the terminating End Office serving the Verizon Customer). For purposes of routing Verizon traffic to PNG, the subtending arrangements between PNG Tandem Switches and PNG End Office Switches shall be the same as the Tandem/End Office subtending arrangements that PNG maintains for the routing of its own or other carriers’ traffic.

  • Integration; Modification This Construction Services Agreement represents the entire understanding of District and Contractor as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered herein, and it shall not be amended, altered or changed except by a written agreement signed by the parties hereto.

  • Performance Testing (a) All performance tests of the Project, including any Initial Performance Test required in Section 2 of Appendix VIII, will be performed in accordance with the test procedures set forth in Appendix VIII (“Performance Test”), including additional procedures and protocols related to Performance Testing as mutually agreed between Buyer and Seller (“Test Procedures”). Seller shall bear all costs and receive all revenues, if applicable, associated with all Performance Tests. (b) After the Initial Delivery Date and during the Delivery Term, Buyer will have the right to conduct a Performance Test (“Buyer Performance Test”) no more than once a calendar year to demonstrate whether the Project is capable of delivering the Distribution Services at the Contract Capacity. Within 30 calendar days following a Buyer Performance Test, Seller will have the right to retest the Project with a Performance Test (“Seller Retest”). For the avoidance of doubt, the results of any Seller Retest will supersede the results of the preceding Buyer Performance Test. (i) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is capable of delivering Distribution Services at or above ninety-nine percent (99%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, the Contract Capacity will remain the Initial Contract Capacity; (ii) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is capable of delivering Distribution Services at more than or equal to eighty-five (85%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, but less than ninety-nine percent (99%) of the Initial Contract Capacity (“Testing Band”), the Contract Capacity will be automatically adjusted (upwards or downwards) to the capacity commensurate with the amount of Distribution Services the Project delivered during the Performance Test within the Testing Band. (iii) If a Buyer Performance Test or, if a corresponding Seller Retest has occurred, a Seller Retest demonstrates the Project is not capable of delivering Distribution Services of at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the Initial Contract Capacity, an Event of Default shall occur in accordance with Section 7.1(a)(viii).

  • Interoperability To the extent required by applicable law, Cisco shall provide You with the interface information needed to achieve interoperability between the Software and another independently created program. Cisco will provide this interface information at Your written request after you pay Cisco’s licensing fees (if any). You will keep this information in strict confidence and strictly follow any applicable terms and conditions upon which Cisco makes such information available.