Inter Partes Review Sample Clauses

Inter Partes Review. The parties agree that within 5 days after the Effective Date:
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Inter Partes Review. Microsoft and VirnetX shall cooperate (and if necessary, VirnetX will cause SAIC to cooperate) to file in each of the Pending IPRs, a joint motion to terminate with respect to Microsoft Corporation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §317(a) in the form set forth in Exhibit C, and a joint request to keep this agreement confidential pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) in the form set forth in Exhibit D. Microsoft and VirnetX will contact (and if necessary, VirnetX will cause SAIC to contact) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to request permission to file in each of the Pending IPRs the motion and the request within five (5) business days of the filing of the dismissals under Section 5.1, and upon receiving permission, file in each of the Pending IPRs the motion and the request within two (2) business days of the PTAB granting such permission. The parties will work together to modify the motion and request to address any issues raised by the PTAB. If the PTAB denies the motions to terminate, the Parties will take such other permitted steps to have Microsoft withdraw from the Pending IPRs. For example, Microsoft will not actively seek to participate in the Pending IPRs, and will not be bound by the results of the Pending IPRs. This covenant shall not be construed as preventing Microsoft from complying with any court or Patent Office order or applicable law.
Sample 1Sample 2
Inter Partes Review. In the event the Parties agree to file for an Inter Partes Review with respect to any Patent Rights (“IPR”), MIMEDX, in consultation with Turn, shall assume primary responsibility to litigate the IPR using legal counsel mutually agreed upon by the parties using reasonable efforts. MIMEDX shall pay for the litigation expenses and shall thereafter invoice Turn for fifty percent (50%) of such litigation expenses as they are incurred, and Turn shall pay such invoiced amounts to MIMEDX within thirty (30) days of receipt of such invoice.
Sample 1
Inter Partes Review. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of each challenged claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Sample 1

Related to Inter Partes Review

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

  • Periodic Reviews During January of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall review Executive's Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and additional benefits then being provided to Executive. Following each such review, the Company may in its discretion increase the Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and benefits; however, the Company shall not decrease such items during the period Executive serves as an employee of the Company. Prior to November 30th of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall communicate in writing the results of such review to Executive.

  • 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.

  • Contract Review Agent shall have reviewed all material contracts of Borrowers including, without limitation, leases, union contracts, labor contracts, vendor supply contracts, license agreements and distributorship agreements and such contracts and agreements shall be satisfactory in all respects to Agent;

  • Reviews (a) During the term of this Agreement and for 7 years after the term of this Agreement, the HSP agrees that the LHIN or its authorized representatives may conduct a Review of the HSP to confirm the HSP’s fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement. For these purposes the LHIN or its authorized representatives may, upon 24 hours’ Notice to the HSP and during normal business hours enter the HSP’s premises to:

  • Quarterly Review For a period commencing on the initial effective date of the Registration Statement and ending five years from the date of the consummation of the Business Combination or until such earlier time at which the Liquidation occurs or the Common Stock and Warrants cease to be publicly traded, the Company, at its expense, shall cause its regularly engaged independent registered public accounting firm to review (but not audit) the Company’s financial statements for each of the first three fiscal quarters prior to the announcement of quarterly financial information, the filing of the Company’s Form 10-Q quarterly report and the mailing, if any, of quarterly financial information to stockholders.

  • Performance Reviews The Employee will be provided with a written performance appraisal at least once per year and said appraisal will be reviewed at which time all aspects of the assessment can be fully discussed.

  • Project Team To accomplish Owner’s objectives, Owner intends to employ a team concept in connection with the construction of the Project. The basic roles and general responsibilities of team members are set forth in general terms below but are more fully set forth in the Design Professional Contract with respect to the Design Professional, in the Program Management Agreement with any Program Manager, and in this Contract with respect to the Contractor.

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

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