G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Option Sample Clauses

G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Option. For any Non-Project G2P Claim in a U.S. patent which falls within the scope of inventions covered in a G2P Recommendation (“G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claim”), Evogene hereby grants to Monsanto an option to receive an exclusive license to such claim as provided in this Section 3.1.6, but solely to Commercially Exploit Collaboration Hit Homologs, Special Collaboration Hits or PlaNet Gene Homologs (and only for as long as Monsanto has licenses hereunder with respect to such Collaboration Hit Homologs, Special Collaboration Hits or PlaNet Gene Homologs), in all fields of use, and solely for transgenic applications in the Monsanto Crops. For clarity, if Monsanto’s licenses hereunder to all Collaboration Hit Homologs, Special Collaboration Hits and/or PlaNet *** Confidential treatment has been requested for redacted portions of this exhibit. This copy omits the information subject to the confidentiality request. Omissions are designated as [***]. A complete version of this exhibit has been provided separately to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Gene Homologs that are applicable to such G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claim terminate prior to a U.S. patent being issued in respect of such claim, then the foregoing option shall not apply with respect to such G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claim. Promptly after the issuance of any U.S. patent containing a G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claim, Evogene shall notify Monsanto in writing thereof. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of such notification, Monsanto shall notify Evogene in writing whether or not it elects to exercise its option with respect to any or all of the G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claims contained in such patent. In the event that Monsanto exercises such option with respect to any G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claim, then the invention claimed in such G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claim shall be treated as a G2P Recommendation with respect to the license grant and royalty provisions set forth in this Agreement, including the terms hereof regarding termination of such licenses. If Monsanto does not exercise such option, then such G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Claim may be licensed to Third Parties, subject to the Non-Assert License.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to G2P Recommendation Non-Project G2P Option

  • No Change in Recommendation or Alternative Acquisition Agreement Neither the Company Board nor any committee thereof shall:

  • Company Board Recommendation (a) The Company hereby consents to the Offer and represents, as of the date of this Agreement, that the Company Board, at a meeting duly called and held, has unanimously made the Company Board Recommendation. Subject in each case to Section 6.1(b), the Company hereby consents to the inclusion of a description of the Company Board Recommendation in the Offer Documents and, during the Pre-Closing Period, neither the Company Board nor any committee thereof shall (i) (A) fail to make, withdraw (or modify or qualify in a manner adverse to Parent or Purchaser), or publicly propose to fail to make, withdraw (or modify or qualify in a manner adverse to Parent or Purchaser), the Company Board Recommendation or (B) approve, recommend or declare advisable, or publicly propose to approve, recommend, endorse or declare advisable, any Acquisition Proposal, (ii) fail to include the Company Board Recommendation in the Schedule 14D-9 when disseminated to the Company’s stockholders (any action described in clause (i) or (ii) being referred to as a “Company Adverse Change Recommendation”), (iii) publicly make any recommendation in connection with a tender offer or exchange offer (other than the Offer) other than a recommendation against such offer or (iv) approve, recommend or declare advisable, or propose to approve, recommend or declare advisable, or allow the Company to execute or enter into any Contract (other than an Acceptable Confidentiality Agreement) with respect to any Acquisition Proposal requiring, or reasonably expected to cause, the Company to abandon, terminate, delay or fail to consummate, or that would otherwise materially impede, interfere with or be inconsistent with, the Transactions.

  • Board Recommendation The Acquiror Company Board, by unanimous written consent, has determined that this Agreement and the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are advisable and in the best interests of the Acquiror Company’s stockholders and has duly authorized this Agreement and the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

  • JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

  • Election Changes The Executive may modify the amount of Deferrals annually by filing a new Deferral Election Form with the Employer. The modified deferral shall not be effective until the calendar year following the year in which the subsequent Deferral Election Form is received by the Employer.

  • MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL Not later than 16 court days before the calendared Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiff will file in Court, a motion for final approval of the Settlement that includes a request for approval of the PAGA settlement under Labor Code section 2699, subd. (l), a Proposed Final Approval Order and a proposed Judgment (collectively “Motion for Final Approval”). Plaintiff shall provide drafts of these documents to Defense Counsel not later than seven days prior to filing the Motion for Final Approval. Class Counsel and Defense Counsel will expeditiously meet and confer in person or by telephone, and in good faith, to resolve any disagreements concerning the Motion for Final Approval.

  • Change of Recommendation Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, at any time prior to obtaining the Company Stockholder Approval, the Company’s Board of Directors may, if it concludes in good faith (after consultation with its financial advisors and outside legal advisors) that the failure to take such action would be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties under applicable Law, make an Adverse Recommendation Change; provided that prior to any such Adverse Recommendation Change, (A) the Company shall have given Parent and Merger Sub prompt written notice advising them of (x) the decision of the Company’s Board of Directors to take such action and the reasons therefor and (y) in the event the decision relates to an Alternative Transaction Proposal, a summary of the material terms and conditions of the Alternative Transaction Proposal and other information requested to be provided with respect thereto pursuant to this Section 5.4, including the information required to be provided pursuant to Section 5.4(b) and (c), (B) the Company shall have given Parent and Merger Sub three (3) Business Days (the “Notice Period”) after delivery of each such notice to propose revisions to the terms of this Agreement (or make another proposal) and, during the Notice Period, the Company shall, and shall direct its financial advisors and outside legal advisors to, negotiate with Parent in good faith (to the extent Parent desires to negotiate) to make such adjustments in the terms and conditions of this Agreement so that, if applicable, such Alternative Transaction Proposal ceases to constitute (in the judgment of the Company’s Board of Directors, after consultation with its financial advisors and outside legal advisors), a Superior Proposal or, if the Adverse Recommendation Change does not involve an Alternative Transaction Proposal, to make such adjustments in the terms and conditions of this Agreement so that such Adverse Recommendation Change is otherwise not necessary, and (C) the Company’s Board of Directors shall have determined in good faith, after considering the results of such negotiations and giving effect to the proposals made by Parent and Merger Sub, if any, that such Alternative Transaction Proposal, if applicable, continues to constitute a Superior Proposal or that such Adverse Recommendation Change is otherwise still required; provided further that, (1) if during the Notice Period described in clause (B) of this paragraph any revisions are made to the Superior Proposal, if applicable, and the Company’s Board of Directors in its good faith judgment determines (after consultation with its financial advisors and outside legal advisors) that such revisions are material (it being understood that any change in the purchase price or form of consideration in such Superior Proposal shall be deemed a material revision), the Company shall deliver a new written notice to Parent and shall comply with the requirements of this Section 5.4(d) with respect to such new written notice except that the new Notice Period shall be two (2) Business Days instead of three (3) Business Days and (2) in the event the Company’s Board of Directors does not make the determination referred to in clause (C) of this paragraph but thereafter determines to make an Adverse Recommendation Change pursuant to this Section 5.4(d), the procedures referred to in clauses (A), (B) and (C) above shall apply anew and shall also apply to any subsequent withdrawal, amendment or change.

  • EPP session-­‐command RTT Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets that includes the sending of a session command plus the reception of the EPP response for only one EPP session command. For the login command it will include packets needed for starting the TCP session. For the logout command it will include packets needed for closing the TCP session. EPP session commands are those described in section 2.9.1 of EPP RFC 5730. If the RTT is 5 times or more the corresponding SLR, the RTT will be considered undefined.

  • Superior Proposal Section 5.4(b)........................................37

  • Updated Information Submission by Interconnection Customer The updated information submission by the Interconnection Customer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. The Interconnection Customer shall submit a completed copy of the Electric Generating Unit data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the LGIP. It shall also include any additional information provided to the Participating TO and the CAISO for the Interconnection Studies. Information in this submission shall be the most current Electric Generating Unit design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with the Participating TO and CAISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Interconnection Customer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information. If the Interconnection Customer's data is materially different from what was originally provided to the Participating TO and the CAISO for the Interconnection Studies, then the Participating TO and the CAISO will conduct appropriate studies pursuant to the LGIP to determine the impact on the Participating TO’s Transmission System and affected portions of the CAISO Controlled Grid based on the actual data submitted pursuant to this Article 24.3. The Interconnection Customer shall not begin Trial Operation until such studies are completed and all other requirements of this LGIA are satisfied.

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