Therefore, given the reciprocal alliances, conditions and agreements set out in them, and for other good and valuable counterparties whose entry and sufficiency are recognized, Pfizer and Trevena agree as follows: 7. This 2nd Amendment can be executed in two or more considerations, each considered original and all forming the same agreement together. Pfizer and Trevena want to amend the agreement to reflect their mutual agreement, as provided for by this second amendment. Pfizer agrees to fully support the technical transfer plan and implement the plan as soon as possible. . At Witness Whereof, the parties encouraged their authorized representatives to implement this second amendment when the amendment came into force. (8) The provision of a 2nd Amendment signed by reliable electronic means, including fax or e-mail, is an effective method of implementing the 2nd Amendment. This second amendment can be retained electronically and a copy of this 2nd Amendment, recorded electronically, can be used for all purposes, including in any procedure for implementing the rights and/or obligations of the parties to that Second Amendment. .
“negotiation year,” any period of twelve consecutive calendar months during this agreement, beginning January 1 and December 31, with the exception of the first year of negotiation beginning on the first day of the month following Trevena`s completion of its first good faith commercial sale of a product manufactured by Pfizer in accordance with this agreement to an unaffiliated customer and ends on December 31 of the following year. Trevena hit his drug, known as olicride, as an opioid that uses different signaling pathways in the brain and would come with fewer side effects than traditional connections, such as morphine. But when the FDA checked the drug in 2018, they came to different conclusions and said it had “potential for abuse, potential for overdose and the ability to produce a physical dependence similar to other opiate agonists.” SOME IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) WOULD BE COMPETITIVELY HARMFUL IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.