AstraZeneca Review Sample Clauses

AstraZeneca Review. The Institution and the Principal Investigator shall submit a copy of any proposed manuscript, abstract, presentation or other document with respect to the Multi- Center Study or the Study, including any Multi-Center Publication of which the Principal Investigator is an author, to AstraZeneca for review and comment at least 60 days prior to its submission for publication or presentation. No publication or presentation with respect to the Multi-Center Study or the Study shall be made unless and until all of AstraZeneca’s comments on the proposed publication or presentation have been considered by the Principal Investigator and any Confidential Information has been removed; provided that any Multi- Center Study Analyses or analyses performed by the Principal Investigator using any Multi- Center Study Analyses (or the Site Data) or that have been disclosed in a publication or presentation authorized pursuant to this Section 17 or pursuant to another clinical study agreement under the Multi-Center Study (but not the underlying Multi-Center Study Data (including Site Data), shall not be deemed Confidential Information for purposes of this Section 17. If requested in writing by AstraZeneca, the Institution and the Principal Investigator shall withhold material from submission for publication or presentation for an additional ninety (90) days to allow for the filing of a patent application or the taking of other measures to establish and preserve AstraZeneca’s proprietary rights. To the extent that any provision of this Section 17 may be inconsistent in any respect with any statements about publication policy set forth in the Protocol, the provisions of this Section 17 shall control.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to AstraZeneca Review

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • Joint Review JADRC may, at the request of either party, review issues arising from the application of this Article.

  • 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.

  • Development Plan document specifying the work program, schedule, and relevant investments required for the Development and the Production of a Discovery or set of Discoveries of Oil and Gas in the Contract Area, including its abandonment.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Independent Study Independent study is a program of independent study, research, and/or experience directly related to the duties described in the employee’s job description or related classification as determined by the Retraining and Study Committee, which promises professional values equivalent to that derived from formal study at a recognized educational institution.

  • Personnel File Review a. A unit member has the right upon his/her own request to review the contents of his/her personnel file. The review will be conducted in the presence of the administrator, or his/her designee, responsible for the safekeeping of such file. The employee may have a committee person assist in said review. Such review shall be conducted at a mutually agreeable time. A copy of requested material will be provided.

  • 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.

  • Commercialization Intrexon shall have the right to develop and Commercialize the Reverted Products itself or with one or more Third Parties, and shall have the right, without obligation to Fibrocell, to take any such actions in connection with such activities as Intrexon (or its designee), at its discretion, deems appropriate.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.