Scenario 3 Sample Clauses

Scenario 3. PTC exploits the Programme Intellectual Property on a For-Profit Basis by retaining development/commercialization rights to Product in some regions of the World or with respect to some uses of the Product (either alone or in a collaboration with a Distributor or marketing/sales agent under which PTC retains overall control of commercialization)), and outlicenses the Product on an exclusive basis in other regions of the World or with respect to other uses of the Product.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Scenario 3. If you have a balance of £510, and: your credit limit is £500; your arrears are £50; the minimum payment we ask you for in your statement is £70; and there is a refund to your account of £200 between your statement date and your payment due date; then we will still require you to pay the full minimum payment of £70. We will use both the £200 refund and your £70 payment to reduce your balance.
Sample 1Sample 2
Scenario 3. If the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Claimants with Valid Claims is equal to the Net Settlement Fund, Claimants with Valid Claims shall be paid their Adjusted Amounts. If the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Claimants with Valid Claims exceeds the Net Settlement Fund, then the Adjusted Amount for each Claimant with a Valid Claim shall be the Adjusted Amount decreased to a lower percentage, on a pro-rata basis, until the total of the Adjusted Amounts equals the Net Settlement Fund. In this event, the Adjusted Amounts for each Payment Group will be reduced in a manner that maintains the 10 / 5 / 3 ratio of percentages between Payment Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, as specified in Section 2.4.3 (i-iii) above. To illustrate, if the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Valid Claims were twice the Net Settlement Fund, Claimants in Payment Group 1 would receive 50% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld, Claimants in Payment Group 2 would receive 25% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld, and Claimants in Payment Group 3 would receive 15% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld.
Sample 1Sample 2
Scenario 3 vulnerability in a critical device (ICS) ICS (Industrial Control Systems) is a general term that describes industrial automation systems responsible for data acquisition, visualization and control of industrial processes. They are very common in industrial sectors and Critical Infrastructures. They play a critical role not only in maintaining the continuity of industrial processes but also to ensure functional and technical safety, preventing large industrial accidents and environmental disasters. According to the report “Analysis of ICS-SCADA Cyber Security Maturity Levels in Critical Sectors “by ENISA, the ICS-SCADA environment is a key component for the European Critical Infrastructures. Most sectors rely on ICS-SCADA to ensure process control and safety which ensure continuity of national critical functions. A vulnerability in this kind of devices, could have a huge impact in a Critical Infrastructure and there have been several cases where malicious actors have been targeting ICS such as the Triton malware or the notorious Stuxnet worm. This seems a likely scenario within the transportation industry, where many assets are controlled by ICS/SCADA. The idea is to show the process of how a hardware provider reports a vulnerability in his products and this information is shared and extended among the different stakeholders within the railway sector (CERT’s, IM’s, RO’s). The figure below shows how it would be the process for this vulnerability. Figure 25: Scenario 3 – Vulnerability identified within a critical service
Sample 1
Scenario 3. NN’s payment to IPH of royalties on Net Sales of any Niche Candidate with respect to which NN has exercised its Buy-In-Option and IPH has exercised its opt out option pursuant to Subsection 6.5.2 shall be as follows:
Sample 1
Scenario 3. Same population, different data sources Estimates for a given population, from different data sources. Here as well, it is useful to distinguish two important subtypes.
Sample 1
Scenario 3. TCCA has issued a design approval to a Canadian DAH and EASA validation is in progress. The procedure for continued validation is:
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Scenario 3. Scenario 3 describes 5 km x 5 km region of Xxxxxx in Berlin which is typical residential area. The expected volume of data traffic in this region is estimated relative low compared with other scenarios. Therefore, MCS density refers the lowest value respectively ~0.56 MCSs/km2 . Accordingly, 260 SCSs are considered to be deployed in this scenario resulting in low density of ~10 SCSs/km2.
Sample 1
Scenario 3. For scenario 3, the selection was made in view of the fact, that the Carbon4PUR polyol production shall be constructed as an add-on to a steel mill, i.e., the place where the CO/CO2 waste gases emerge. Thus, the transport of these gases can be avoided. On the other hand the epoxide availability was set as non-mandatory. However, at least an olefin source (chemical site or olefin pipeline) had to be near the steel mill. The distance between the CO source and the olefin source was allowed to be up to 30 km. With these inclusion criteria, five European regions have been identified to be feasible replication sites. These regions are:  The Port of Marseille, which has already been identified in scenario 1 and 2. This location is for sure the most attractive option from the point of view of the Carbon4PUR project partners, as all considerations and studies are focussed on this location, where the industrial partners are co-located. The nominal annual polyol production capacity can be more than 5-fold (277 kt/a) compared to the intended capacity. Both CO/CO2 gas streams and the needed epoxides are available and there is no need to construct an olefin-to-epoxide oxidation plant.  The ArcelorMittal steel mill in the region of Zeeland (Terneuzen/Gent) has a nominal annual polyol production capacity, which is about 25% higher than the ArcelorMittal FOS steel mill at the Port of Marseille. However the distance to the next epoxide source, i.e., DOW Benelux N.V., is about 18 km.  The Duisburg/Essen region has the highest nominal annual polyol production capacity of 685 kt/a and 433 kt/a with emissions from Hüttenwerke Xxxxx Mannesmann GmbH and thyssenkrupp Steel Europe XX Xxxx Schwelgern, respectively. However, the epoxides are only available at a distance of about 45 km, where the Covestro Deutschland AG polyol plant is located. On the other hand, olefins would be available at shorter distance (5-20 km) from the nearby pipelines. However, this would require the construction of an olefin-to-epoxide oxidation plant.  The regions of Amsterdam and Hall are ranked at the lowest within this scenario, as the distance between CO and olefin source are 25 km and 32 km, respectively. As there are no epoxide sources in the near vicinity, the construction of an olefin-to- epoxide oxidation plant would be necessary. Scenarios 2 and 3 are hard to rank against each other. On the one hand, scenario 2 has selected only sites where the epoxides are already available. Thus, the constr...
Sample 1

Related to Scenario 3

  • Stability Testing Patheon may be requested to conduct stability testing on the Products in accordance with the protocols set out in the Specifications for the separate fees and during the time periods set out in Schedule C to a Product Agreement. Patheon will not make any changes to these testing protocols without prior written approval from Client. If a confirmed stability test failure occurs, Patheon will notify Client within one Business Day, after which Patheon and Client will jointly determine the proceedings and methods to be undertaken to investigate the cause of the failure, including which party will bear the cost of the investigation. Patheon will not be liable for these costs unless it has failed to perform the Manufacturing Services in accordance with the Specifications, cGMPs, and Applicable Laws. Patheon will give Client ail stability test data and results at Client’s request.

  • Protocol No action to coerce or censor or penalize any negotiation participant shall be made or implied by any other member as a result of participation in the negotiation process.

  • Stability 14.01 Maintain a documented, ongoing stability program to monitor the stability of the Product using stability indicating procedures. X 14.02 Data analysis and trending reporting will be performed. X

  • Performance Tests Contractor shall perform Performance Tests in accordance with Section 11.2 of the Agreement and Attachment S.

  • Tests and Preclinical and Clinical Trials The studies, tests and preclinical and clinical trials conducted by or, to the Company’s knowledge, on behalf of the Company were and, if still ongoing, are being conducted in all material respects in accordance with experimental protocols, procedures and controls pursuant to accepted professional scientific standards and all Authorizations and Applicable Laws, including, without limitation, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, “FFDCA”); the descriptions of the results of such studies, tests and trials contained in the Registration Statement, the General Disclosure Package and the Prospectus are, to the Company’s knowledge, accurate in all material respects and fairly present the data derived from such studies, tests and trials; except to the extent disclosed in the Registration Statement, the General Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, the Company is not aware of any studies, tests or trials, the results of which the Company believes reasonably call into question the study, test, or trial results described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the General Disclosure Package and the Prospectus when viewed in the context in which such results are described and the clinical state of development; and, except to the extent disclosed in the Registration Statement, the General Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has received any notices or correspondence from the FDA or any Governmental Entity requiring the termination or suspension of any studies, tests or preclinical or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the Company, other than ordinary course communications with respect to modifications in connection with the design and implementation of such trials, copies of which communications have been made available to you.

  • Network Access Control The VISION Web Site and the Distribution Support Services Web Site (the “DST Web Sites”) are protected through multiple levels of network controls. The first defense is a border router which exists at the boundary between the DST Web Sites and the Internet Service Provider. The border router provides basic protections including anti-spoofing controls. Next is a highly available pair of stateful firewalls that allow only HTTPS traffic destined to the DST Web Sites. The third network control is a highly available pair of load balancers that terminate the HTTPS connections and then forward the traffic on to one of several available web servers. In addition, a second highly available pair of stateful firewalls enforce network controls between the web servers and any back-end application servers. No Internet traffic is allowed directly to the back-end application servers. The DST Web Sites equipment is located and administered at DST’s Winchester data center. Changes to the systems residing on this computer are submitted through the DST change control process. All services and functions within the DST Web Sites are deactivated with the exception of services and functions which support the transfer of files. All ports on the DST Web Sites are disabled, except those ports required to transfer files. All “listeners,” other than listeners required for inbound connections from the load balancers, are deactivated. Directory structures are “hidden” from the user. Services which provide directory information are also deactivated.

  • Compatibility 1. Any unresolved issue arising from a mutual agreement procedure case otherwise within the scope of the arbitration process provided for in this Article and Articles 25A to 25G shall not be submitted to arbitration if the issue falls within the scope of a case with respect to which an arbitration panel or similar body has previously been set up in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral convention that provides for mandatory binding arbitration of unresolved issues arising from a mutual agreement procedure case.

  • Configuration The configuration for the Purchase Right Aircraft will be the Detail Specification for Model 767-3S2F aircraft at the revision level in effect at the time of the Supplemental Agreement. Such Detail Specification will be revised to include (i) changes required to obtain required regulatory certificates and (ii) other changes as mutually agreed upon by Boeing and Customer.

  • Traceability 11.1 Under the terms of this Agreement, Supplier shall have and operate a process to ensure that all Products, sub-assemblies and the components contained therein supplied to the Buyer are completely Traceable back to manufacturer by batch or lot or date code.

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