Product-Specific Patents. Subject to Section 9.2.4, Akcea, either directly or through its Affiliates and Sublicensees, will have the first right, at its expense, to file, prosecute, and maintain throughout the world all Product-Specific Patents. Until such time that Akcea hires in-house patent counsel or engages outside patent counsel, Isis will provide to Akcea, under the Services Agreement, patent management services, including preparation and prosecution of all Product-Specific Patents world-wide and management of outside patent counsel world-wide. After Akcea retains its own patent counsel, Akcea will provide Isis with an update of the filing, prosecution and maintenance status for each such Product-Specific Patent on a periodic basis and will reasonably consult with and cooperate with Isis with respect to the preparation, filing, prosecution, and maintenance of such Product-Specific Patents, including providing Isis with drafts of material filings in sufficient time to allow Isis’ review and comment before such filings are due. Akcea, or its outside counsel, will provide to Isis copies of any material papers relating to the filing, prosecution, and maintenance of such Product-Specific Patents promptly upon their being filed or received. Akcea may cease prosecuting or maintaining particular applications or patents within such Product-Specific Patents in selected jurisdictions, if Akcea determines that it is not commercially reasonable to continue such efforts (in which case the terms of Section 9.2.4 will apply).
Product-Specific Patents. Santarus shall have the right, at its sole discretion, on its own behalf, to institute, prosecute and control any action or proceeding to restrain infringement of any Product-Specific Patent in the Territory by a Third Party, other than the Impax Litigation or any such action or proceeding for which Santarus does not have standing to so institute or prosecute. In any instance in which Santarus does not have such standing, or to the extent the Impax Litigation continues following the Effective Date, Shore shall, under Santarus’ direction and control and expense (except with respect to the Impax Litigation, the cost and expense for which CHRP and/or Shore shall be solely responsible), institute or prosecute such action or proceeding to restrain infringement. The Parties which are not party to such an action or proceeding agree to be joined, and shall request that LifeCycle join, as a party plaintiff if necessary or appropriate, and shall provide all reasonable cooperation, at Santarus’ expense, required to prosecute such action. Santarus shall have sole control of any such action and all negotiations for its settlement or compromise and shall have the sole right to settle or compromise any such action (or direct such settlement or compromise), provided that no party shall settle or ***Certain information on this page has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions. compromise any such action or enter into any consent order for the settlement or compromise of such action that may materially negatively impact the rights or interests of LifeCycle and/or Shore without the prior written consent of LifeCycle and/or Shore, as applicable, such consent by Shore not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed; and provided further, however, that Santarus shall keep Shore reasonably informed of the status of any such action and provide Shore and LifeCycle reasonable opportunities to consult with Santarus regarding such action. If, prior to the expiration of [***] from an Infringement Notice regarding infringement of any Product-Specific Patent, Santarus has not obtained a discontinuance of the alleged infringement or brought an infringement action or proceeding or otherwise taken appropriate action to xxxxx such infringement, then Shore and LifeCycle shall each have the right, but not the obligation, to institute, prosecute and control any action or...
Product-Specific Patents. (a) (i) Prior to AZ’s exercise of the Option corresponding to the applicable Selected Target(s) to which the Licensed Compounds and/or Licensed Products Covered by such Product Specific Patents relate, or
Product-Specific Patents. With respect to the Product-Specific Patents, Akcea will have the first right, but not the obligation, at Akcea’s expense, to remove such infringement. If Isis requests that Akcea take action to remove infringement of a Product-Specific Patent, and Akcea believes it is not commercially appropriate to take such actions, the Parties will meet and discuss in good faith such circumstances and seek to reach agreement on what appropriate steps to take to cause such infringement to end in a commercially appropriate manner.
Product-Specific Patents. The provisions of this Section 10.1(c) define certain Patents covering BIND Sponsored Design/Preclinical Collaboration Technology that, notwithstanding the general provisions of Section 10.1(b), Pfizer will have the first right to Prosecute and Maintain, as provided in Section 10.2(b). For any Patent within BIND Sponsored Design/Preclinical Collaboration Technology having a specification that could reasonably support and enable a composition-of-matter claim, a method of manufacturing claim or a method-of-use claim in each case covering only a particular Agreement Compound or a particular Covered Product, the following will apply: to the extent consistent with reasonable practices in the Prosecution and Maintenance of Patents generally, upon Pfizer’s reasonable written request and provided that BIND reasonably agrees with Pfizer that the following Prosecution and Maintenance activities would not materially harm any Patents within the BIND Sponsored Design/Preclinical Collaboration Technology or BIND Background IP, BIND will file (within 45 days of such request by Pfizer) a U.S. continuation, continuation-in-part or divisional of such Patent (and a comparable filing in any other country so requested by Pfizer) seeking issuance of such composition-of-matter, method of manufacture or method-of-use claim scope (and no other claim scope) (each a “Product Specific Patent”). Each such Product Specific Patent will be and remain part of the “BIND Sponsored Design/Preclinical Collaboration Technology” hereunder. If and at such time as Pfizer no longer has an exclusive license to all of the claim scope of any such Product Specific Patent, then such Product Specific Patent will no longer be treated as such hereunder (although it may remain part of the BIND Sponsored Design/Preclinical Collaboration Technology). Pfizer acknowledges and agrees that BIND may grant substantially similar rights to other exclusive Third Party licensees under any BIND Background Technology and BIND Sponsored Design/Preclinical Collaboration Technology.
Product-Specific Patents. On a Licensed Collaboration Tumor Type-by-Licensed Collaboration Tumor Type basis and for so long as the license granted to Providence under Section 4.1 for such Collaboration Tumor Type remains in effect, Providence shall have the right to determine the Product-Specific Patents for which it will apply for patent extension in any country and/or region for any Product in the Licensed Field. Providence shall file for any such extension at Providence’s cost and expense. Arcturus shall provide all reasonable assistance to Providence in connection with such filings, provided that Providence shall pay or reimburse any out-of-pocket costs incurred by Arcturus in providing such assistance.
Product-Specific Patents. Naia shall have the first right, but not the obligation, to bring (or defend) and control any action or proceeding with respect to any infringement of a Product-specific Patent, and Amunix shall have the right to be represented in any such action, at Amunix’s own expense and by counsel of its own choice; provided, however, that Naia shall keep Amunix fully informed about such action. If Naia fails to bring any such action or proceeding, or initiate settlement negotiations, with respect to an infringement of any Product-specific Patent within [ ] ([ ]) days following the notice of the alleged infringement, Amunix shall have the right to bring (or defend) and control any such action at its own expense and by counsel of its own choice, and Naia shall have the right, at its own expense, to be represented in any such action by counsel of its own choice. The Parties hereby agree and acknowledge that Naia may extend its rights under this Section 4.3(b)(ii) to an Affiliate or Sublicensee, subject to such Affiliate’s or Sublicensee’s compliance with Naia’s obligations under this Section 4.3(b)(ii).
Product-Specific Patents. Product Specific Patents will be filed by AstraZeneca at AstraZeneca’s sole discretion, but with the full co-operation and co-ordination of BIND.
Product-Specific Patents. As between the Parties: (a) Lilly has the first right, but not the obligation, to Prosecute and Maintain any Avidity Patents that include a specific claim to a Compound or a Product and/or the specific component of the Avidity Proprietary Technology that is incorporated in such Compound or Product (the “Product-Specific Patents”) at Lilly’s sole cost and expense; and (b) Avidity has the first right, but not the obligation, to Prosecute and Maintain any Avidity Patents that are not Product-Specific Patents (the “Avidity-Controlled Patents”). For clarity, Product-Specific Patents include, but are not limited to composition of matter, uses, formulations, doses, dosing regimens, and manufacturing
Product-Specific Patents. As between the Parties, Lilly has the first right to bring and control any legal action in connection with any Infringement of any Product-Specific Patents at its own expense. Lilly shall keep Avidity reasonably informed of the status of such enforcement efforts for the Product-Specific Patents and shall consider in good faith Avidity’s comments thereon. Lilly shall provide Avidity with drafts of all material papers to be filed with the court and shall in good faith consider all reasonable comments thereto by Avidity before filing such papers. Avidity may, at its own expense, be represented in any such action by counsel of its own choice. If Lilly does not bring such legal action within [* * *] after the notice provided pursuant to Section 8.3.1, Avidity may bring and control any legal action in connection with such Infringement of such Product-Specific Patent at its own expense as it reasonably determines appropriate so long as Lilly does not reasonably object to such action.
