Chat GPT Q&A, page-436

Common Clauses That Trigger These Moves

	Clause	Why It's Risky
1	“Improvements” Clauses	Can force companies tolicense back any enhancementsrelated to original tech.
2	“Field of Use” Ambiguity	Broad definitions (e.g. “cardioprotection” or “oncology”) may entangle unrelated future developments.
3	“Milestone Triggers on IND/Clinical Progress”	Can make future trialsfinancially burdensome, even if COH didn’t contribute.
4	“Derivative Works” or “Know-How” Rights	COH may claimownership or profit shareover insights they only partially contributed to.

Implication for Race Oncology

If the COH agreement hadanyof the above clauses, Race:

• Would bewise to terminate nowbefore announcing new preclinical results or signing a licensing deal;

• Could claimnew work is completely independent, especially if they’ve developed a novel mechanism or formulation;

• Might be preparing forlicensing or partnership disclosures, and wants a “clean IP cap table” before entering due diligence.

Would you like me to map this reasoning into anASX-compliant investor explanation, or a hypotheticaltimeline of preclinical → IP filing → licensing deallike Gilead’s Forty Seven sequence?

prompt what are the common clause to terminate ip under these circumstances?