alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.36







	



Exhibit 10.36 




AMENDMENT NO. 3



TO LICENSE AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

BETWEEN THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND

SCIENTIFIC LEARNING CORPORATION

COVERING TRAINING AIDS FOR THE REMEDIATION OF LEARNING DISABILITES



Scientific Learning Corporation (“SLC")
and The Regents of the University of California have entered into an  Exclusive License
Agreement, dated as of September 27, 1996, as amended by Amendment No. 1 effective as of
January 1, 1999, Amendment No. 2, dated as of September 13, 2001, and the UC Consent
letter dated as of September  2003.  Such Exclusive License Agreement, as thereby
amended, is collectively referred to herein as the “License  Agreement”.



Amendment



The Regents and SLC agree to amend
the License Agreement as follows:










	1. 	Section
7.1 shall be amended  to read in full as follows:






	 	“7.1
The Licensee shall also pay to The Regents an earned royalty as follows:  eight percent
(8%) of  the first Twenty Five Million dollars ($25,000,000) of cumulative Net Sales by
SLC of Licensed Products  or Licensed Methods; six percent (6%) of Net Sales by SLC
thereafter until cumulative Net Sales by SLC  reaches Fifty Million dollars
($50,000,000); four percent (4%) of Net Sales thereafter until the  combined cumulative
Net Sales achieved by SLC and SLC’s sublicensee, Neuroscience Solutions Corporation
(“NSC”), reaches Two Hundred Million dollars ($200,000,000); three and one-half
percent (3.5%) of Net  Sales thereafter until the combined cumulative Net Sales of SLC
and NSC reaches Two Hundred Fifty  Million dollars ($250,000,000); and three percent (3%)
of the combined cumulative Net Sales of SLC and  NSC of Licensed Products and Licensed
Methods in excess of Two Hundred Fifty Million dollars  ($250,000,000).”.  






	2. 	This
Amendment No. 3 shall become effective upon the closing under the proposed Technology
Transfer  Agreement between SLC and Neuroscience Solutions Corporation.






	


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have executed this Amendment No. 3 in duplicate originals by their duly
authorized officers or representatives.










	SCIENTIFIC LEARNING

CORPORATION



By /s/ Linda L. Carloni

      ———————————

      Linda L. Carloni

      Vice President and General
      Counsel


Date: 9/19/03

		THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA



By /s/ Joel B. Kirschbaum

      ———————————

      Joel B. Kirschbaum


Title: Director - OTM



Date: 9/19/03
§ 401.16 Federal agency reporting requirements. Federal agencies will report annually to the Secretary on data pertaining to reported subject inventions under a funding agreement, including— ( a ) Number of subject inventions reported to the Federal agency;
( b ) Patent applications filed on subject inventions;
( c ) Issued patents on subject inventions;
( d ) Number of requests and number of requests granted for extension of the time for disclosures, election, and filing per 37 CFR 401.14(c)(5);
( e ) Number of subject inventions conveyed to the Government in accordance with 37 CFR 401.14(d);
( f ) Number of waivers requested and waivers granted per 37 CFR 401.14(i);
( g ) Number of requests for assignment of invention rights; and
( h ) Summary of utilization information provided by contractors. Such information will be received by the Secretary no later than the last day of October of each year.
[88 FR 17739, Mar. 24, 2023]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2289]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12646-001--Oklahoma]


City of Broken Bow, OK; Pine Creek Lake Dam Hydroelectric 
Project; Notice of Revised Restricted Service List for a Programmatic 
Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion 
in the National Register of Historic Places

January 28, 2009.
    On November 17, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued notice of a proposed restricted service list for 
the preparation of a programmatic agreement for managing properties 
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 
Historic Places at the Pine Creek Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 
126468. Rule 2010(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 18 CFR 2010(d)(1) (2005), provides for the establishment of 
such a list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding to 
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency. 
Under Rule 2010(d)(4), persons on the official service list are to be 
given notice of any proposal to establish a restricted service list and 
an opportunity to show why they should also be included on the 
restricted service list or why a restricted service list should not be 
established.
    On January 23, 2009, Willard B. Smith, consulting engineer for the 
applicant, responded to the notice, requesting to be included in the 
restricted service list. Under Rule 2010(d)(2), any restricted service 
list will contain the names of each person on the official service 
list, or the person's representative, who, in the judgment of the 
decisional authority establishing the list, is an active participant 
with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list 
is established. Mr. Smith, as the applicant's consultant, has an 
identifiable interest in issues as they relate to the management of 
historic properties at the Pine Creek Lake Dam Project. Therefore, he 
will be added to the restrictive service list.
    Accordingly, the restricted service list issued on November 17, 
2008, for the Pine Creek Lake Dam Project No. 126468 is revised to add 
the following person: Willard B. Smith, P.E., CFM, HISINC, L.L.C., 
28508 W. 41st Street South, Mannford, OK 74044.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2289 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

October 15, 2015

Mr. Alan L. Hamilton

9902 Childress Drive

Austin, TX 78753

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Karen L. Landinger

Cokinos, Bosien and Young

10999 W Ih 10 Ste 800

San Antonio, TX 78230-1349

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-15-00307-CV

Tr.Ct.No. D-1-GN-13-001230

Style: Alan L. Hamilton, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Hamilton 

Family Trust, and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Maurine P. 

Hamilton v. Daniel Davila, III

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: 353rd District Court (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Velva L. Price, Travis County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Billy Ray Stubblefield, Presiding Judge, Third Administrative Judicial 

Region (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.335 Filing of notice of arbitration awards.

(a) Written notice of any award by an arbitrator pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 294 must be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office by the patentee, or the patentee's assignee or licensee. If the award involves more than one patent a separate notice must be filed for placement in the file of each patent. The notice must set forth the patent number, the names of the inventor and patent owner, and the names and addresses of the parties to the arbitration. The notice must also include a copy of the award.

(b) If an award by an arbitrator pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 294 is modified by a court, the party requesting the modification must file in the Patent and Trademark Office, a notice of the modification for placement in the file of each patent to which the modification applies. The notice must set forth the patent number, the names of the inventor and patent owner, and the names and addresses of the parties to the arbitration. The notice must also include a copy of the court's order modifying the award.

(c) Any award by an arbitrator pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 294 shall be unenforceable until any notices required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. If any required notice is not filed by the party designated in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, any party to the arbitration proceeding may file such a notice.

(35 U.S.C. 6, Pub. L. 97-247)

[48 FR 2714, Jan. 20, 1983]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Opinion issued March 7 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 18

- 00912

- CV

——————————— IN RE MATAGORDA COUN TY , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Matagorda County, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
challenging the trial court’s denial of the county’s motion to transfer venue from
Galveston County to Matagorda County. 1 We deny the petition and lift the stay
imposed by our October 18, 2018 ord er.

1 The underlying case is Kevin B. Davis v. Matagorda County , cause number 18

- CV

- 0678, pending in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable John C. Ellisor presiding.2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.
42015.

#### FERENCE v. LACY.

Jordan, Judge.

The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant on December 30, 1964, to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by him on April 30, 1962. The defendant filed an oral motion in the nature of a general demurrer to dismiss the petition on the ground that it affirmatively disclosed that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by the statute of limitation. This motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial, the jury returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant filed motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict which were denied, and he appealed to this court, enumerating as error the denial of these motions and the denial of his antecedent motion to dismiss the petition. *Held:*

The period of limitation in which to bring this action was two years *(Code*§ 3-1004); and since the petition showed on its face that this suit was not brought within that time, the petition was subject to the defendant’s oral motion to dismiss expressly based upon the bar of the statute of limitation unless the plaintiff “clearly, plainly and distinctly plead[ed] facts which will bring him within . . . exception” to the operation of the statute. *Wallace v. Eiselman,*219 Ga, 595, 596 (134 SE2d 807). In this regard the petition alleged that the plaintiff was rendered insane because of serious brain damage received in the occurrence complained of and that such insanity made him mentally incapable of conducting his business affairs and of prosecuting this action until December *8491, 1963. The petition did not, however, allege any facts showing why the plaintiff could not have instituted this action between December 1, 1963, and April 29, 1964, a period of approximately five months between the date his alleged mental incapacity ceased and the expiration date of the two-year period of limitation; and in the absence of such showing, the fact that the plaintiff was temporarily mentally incapacitated as the result of the injuries sustained by him in the occurrence complained of, would not excuse his failure to bring this action within the applicable period of limitation. *Lowe v. Bailey,*112 Ga. App. 616 (145 SE2d 622); *Davis v. Hill,*113 Ga. App. 280 (3) (147 SE2d 868); *Wallace v. Eiselman,*219 Ga. 595, supra.

Argued May 4, 1966

Decided May 25, 1966

Rehearing denied June 21, 1966

*Marcus Calhoun, Forester & Calhoun,*for appellant.

*Alexander, Vann & Lilly, Heyward Vann, Roy M. Lilly,*for appellee.

The trial court erred therefore in denying the defendant’s oral motion to dismiss the petition, and such error rendered the subsequent proceedings in this case nugatory. *State Hwy. Dept. v. Reed,*211 Ga. 197 (4) (84 SE2d 561); *Poole v. McEntire,*209 Ga. 659 (3) (75 SE2d 20); *American Nat. Bank &c. Co. v. Davis,*104 Ga. App. 586 (122 SE2d 477); *Purser v. Chas. S. Martin Distributing Co.,*110 Ga. App. 768 (140 SE2d 75).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
<TABLE>

                      IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.

          Exhibit 11.1 - Computation of Per Share Earnings

                For the Quarter Ended September 30, 2000

<CAPTION>



QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000:
                                                                    Basic               Diluted
                                                                 --------------       -------------

Weighted average number of shares
<S>                                                              <C>                  <C>
        Average common shares outstanding at September 30, 2000    86,352,781          86,352,781
        Dilutive effect for stock options at September 30, 2000           -               912,217
                                                                 --------------       -------------

        Adjusted weighted average shares at September 30, 2000     86,352,781          87,264,998
                                                                 ==============       =============


Net income to be used to compute
   diluted earnings per share                                               (Dollars in
                                                                             thousands)
       Net income                                                     $30,045             $30,045
                                                                 ==============       =============

Earnings Per Share                                                       $.35                $.34
                                                                 ==============       =============





                For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2000



NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000:
                                                                    Basic               Diluted
                                                                 --------------       -------------

Weighted average number of shares
        Average common shares outstanding at September 30, 2000    85,922,702          85,922,702
        Dilutive effect for stock options at September 30, 2000           -               785,845
                                                                 --------------       -------------

        Adjusted weighted average shares at September 30, 2000     85,922,702          86,708,547
                                                                 ==============       =============


Net income to be used to compute
   diluted earnings per share                                               (Dollars in
                                                                             thousands)
       Net income                                                    $151,352            $151,352
                                                                 ==============       =============

Earnings Per Share                                                      $1.76               $1.75
                                                                 ==============       =============




</TABLE>
§ 18.410 Effect of State or local law or other requirements and effect of employment opportunities. ( a ) The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated by the existence of any State law or other requirement that, on the basis of handicap, imposes prohibitions or limits upon the eligibility of qualified handicapped persons to receive services or to practice any occupation or profession.
( b ) The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for handicapped persons than for nonhandicapped persons.
#### MAURINE MOTOR COMPANY v. Henry LAVIGNE.

No. 65254.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Maurine Motor Company, applying for writ of review. Parish of Tangiapahoa. No. 12,636.

Writ denied.
§ 15.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resolution Management shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resolution Management at the following address: Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate Government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 15.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[53 FR 25885, July 8, 1988, as amended at 53 FR 25885, July 8, 1988; 54 FR 34982, Aug. 23, 1989; 67 FR 3435, Jan. 24, 2002]
#### § 90.1 Purpose and applicability.

The provisions of this part set forth the policies and procedures of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) with respect to its conduct of health assessments and health effects studies under section 104(i) of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and section 3019 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These provisions apply to ATSDR, as well as its contractors, agents, and those carrying out health assessments and health effects studies pursuant to agreements with ATSDR, such as other Federal agencies and States.
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Colin Dunn, Vice President of Finance of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.





Dated:  August
10, 2009





BY:
                /s/ Colin
  DunnColin Dunn, Vice
      President of Finance