Common use of Validity Challenges Clause in Contracts

Validity Challenges. If Erasca or a Sublicensee, itself or through a Third Party, institutes any proceeding that contests the validity of any Licensed Patent during the Term, Erasca agrees to pay to Katmai, directly and not into any escrow or other account, all royalties and other amounts due in view of Erasca’s and its Sublicensees’ activities under this Agreement during the period of challenge, and Katmai’s and the UC’s attorneys’ fees in defending such action, with such fees payable on a monthly basis. Should the outcome of such contest determine that any challenged patent claim is valid, Erasca will thereafter, and for the remainder of the Royalty Term, pay an increased royalty rate equal to [***] ([***]) times the otherwise applicable royalty rate and the entirety of Katmai’s and the UC’s legal (including attorney) fees and costs incurred during such proceeding. Breach of this Section 3.1(d)(iv) shall be a material breach of the Agreement. If a Sublicensee challenges the validity of a Licensed Patent, so long as Erasca did not directly or indirectly induce, encourage, or otherwise assist such Sublicensee in its challenge of the Patent Rights, then the royalty rate payable with respect to Net Sales by Erasca or its Affiliates, as opposed to Net Sales by the relevant Sublicensees, will not be [***] pursuant to the preceding sentence; provided, further, Erasca shall promptly terminate the sublicense agreement(s) pursuant to which such Sublicensee has been granted rights under such Licensed Patents if such Sublicensee fails to pay, within forty-five (45) days after receiving an invoice from Katmai or UC detailing such fees and costs, the applicable increased royalty rate and the entirety of Katmai’s and the UC’s legal (including attorney) fees and costs incurred during such proceeding.