Aligos Therapeutics (ALGS) Risk Factors

In addition to patent and other intellectual property rights we own or co-own, we have licensed, and may in the future license, patent and other intellectual property rights to and from other parties. In particular, we have in-licensed significant intellectual property rights from Emory and Luxna. Licenses may not provide us with exclusive rights to use the applicable intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our drug candidates, products (if approved) and technology in the future. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products or technologies. In addition, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications or to maintain, defend and enforce the patents that we license to or from third parties, and we may have to rely on our partners to fulfill these responsibilities. For example, under the Luxna Agreement, we obtained a license from Luxna under patents relevant to certain aspects of our HBV programs as well as to various potential therapies, which we are pursuing to address SARS-CoV-2. Although we have review and comment rights regarding prosecution of patents that we license under the Luxna Agreement, Luxna retains ultimate decision-making control with respect to the prosecution of these patents. Additionally, under the Emory License Agreement, we obtained a license from Emory University under patents relevant to certain aspects of our small molecule CHB program. Although we direct prosecution of patents licensed under the Emory License Agreement, we are obligated to consult with Emory University with respect to prosecution of these patents and Emory and its counsel are responsible for making all filings related to such prosecution. Similarly, although we will control the prosecution of jointly developed patents resulting from our collaboration with the Rega Institute for Medical Research and the CD3 under the KU Leuven Agreement, we are obligated to consult with such parties with respect to prosecution of these patents. Consequently, any such licensed patents and applications may not be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors, licensees or collaborators fail to prepare, file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, and defend licensed patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated, and our right to develop and commercialize any of our drug candidates or technology that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected. In addition, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor's rights. If we fail to comply with our obligations, including the obligation to make various milestone payments and royalty payments, under any of the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties, such as the Emory License Agreement or Luxna Agreement, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. Under some of our in-license agreements, as a sublicensee, we may be obligated to comply with applicable requirements, limitations or obligations of our sublicensors to other third parties. For example, the Luxna Agreement includes rights that Luxna in-licensed from Osaka University (Osaka), which are in turn sublicensed to us. Prior to granting such rights to Luxna, Osaka granted certain rights to third parties and therefore the rights we in-license from Luxna are subject to such third-party rights. Although we understand that these rights granted to such third parties are for uses outside the scope of our business, license agreements are complex, subject to multiple interpretations and disputes may arise regarding scope of such licensed rights. Further, under the Luxna Agreement and other in-licenses under which we sublicense certain rights, we rely on Luxna and our other sublicensors to comply with their obligations under their upstream license agreements, where we may have no relationship with the original licensor of such rights. If our sublicensors fail to comply with their obligations under their upstream license agreements, and the upstream license agreements are consequently terminated, such termination may result in the termination of our sublicenses. If any of our license agreements are terminated, the underlying licensed patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity or we otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business or be prevented from developing and commercializing our drug candidates, and competitors could have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may also result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology, or impede, delay or prohibit the further development or commercialization of one or more drug candidates that rely on such agreements. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain any additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our drug candidates or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. In addition, the research resulting in certain of our owned and in-licensed patent rights and technology may have been funded in part by the U.S. federal or state governments. As a result, the government may have certain rights, including march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for noncommercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, or because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues and certain provisions in intellectual property license agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. Disputes may arise between us and our licensing partners regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;- whether and the extent to which technology and processes of one party infringe intellectual property of the other party that are not subject to the licensing agreement;- rights to sublicense patent and other rights to third parties;- any diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to development and commercialization of our drug candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;- the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property;- rights to transfer or assign the license; and - the effects of termination. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected drug candidates. Moreover, any dispute or disagreement with our licensing partners may result in the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our drug candidates or any future drug candidates, and may result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources away from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, current and future collaborators or strategic partners may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the products or potential products that are the subject of these collaborations. Competing products, either developed by our collaborators or strategic partners or to which the collaborators or strategic partners have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for our drug candidates. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts. In addition, if our licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to prevent infringement by third parties or if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, our business, competitive position, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed. For more information regarding our license agreements, see the section titled "Business-License agreements and collaborations" of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, previously filed with the SEC.

We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors' patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending patent application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our drug candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, U.S. patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. As mentioned above, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our drug candidates could have been filed by third parties without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our drug candidates or the use of our drug candidates. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent's prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our drug candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our drug candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party's pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our drug candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our drug candidates. We are aware of certain third-party issued patents and pending patent applications, including those of our competitors, that, if issued with their current claim scope, may be construed to cover our drug candidates, including ALG-055009 and ALG-125755. In the event that any of these patents were asserted against us, we believe that we would have defenses against any such action, including that such patents are not valid. However, if any such patents were to be asserted against us and our defenses to such assertion were unsuccessful and alternative technology was not available or technologically or commercially practical, unless we obtain a license to such patents, we could be liable for damages, which could be significant and include treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to willfully infringe such patents, and we could be precluded from commercializing any drug candidates that were ultimately held to infringe such patents. In addition, if we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, which may be significant, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our drug candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign drug candidates so that they no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our drug candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a drug candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic versions. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug candidates, patents directed towards such drug candidates might expire before or shortly after such drug candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing drug candidates similar or identical to ours for a meaningful amount of time, or at all. Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our drug candidates, one or more of our owned or licensed U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, and similar legislation in the EU and certain other countries. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and only those claims for the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable drug candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and nonclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed. Further, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our drug candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of our drug candidates is approved and a patent covering that drug candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such drug candidate. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patents on our drug candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and consequently our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patents to develop their own products and may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patents, but enforcement rights are not as strong as those in the United States. These products may compete with our drug candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the enforcement or protection of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Many foreign countries, including some EU countries, India, Japan and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under specified circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of the applicable patents and limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, on June 1, 2023, the European Patent Package, or EU Patent Package, regulations were implemented with the goal of providing a single pan-European Unitary Patent and a new European Unified Patent Court, or UPC, for litigation involving European patents. Under the UPC, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the European Patent Package, will by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC will provide our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke our European patents, and allow for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunctions. It will be several years before we will understand the scope of patent rights that will be recognized and the strength of patent remedies that will be provided by the UPC. Under the EU Patent Package as currently proposed, we have the right to opt our patents out of the UPC over the first seven years of the court's existence, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the new unified court. Moreover, geo-political actions in the U.S. and in foreign countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications or those of any current or future licensors and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents or those of any current or future licensors. For example, the U.S. and foreign government actions related to Russia's conflict in Ukraine may limit or prevent filing, prosecution, and maintenance of patent applications in Russia. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Russia. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of our patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Russia. In addition, a decree was adopted by the Russian government in March 2022, allowing Russian companies and individuals to exploit inventions owned by patentees from the U.S. without consent or compensation. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in Russia or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into Russia. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry is inherently uncertain, due in part to ongoing changes in the patent laws. For example, in the United States, depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents, and interpretation thereof, could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our and our collaborators' or licensors' ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing or future patents. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Therefore, there is increased uncertainty with regard to our and our collaborators' or licensors' ability to obtain patents in the future, as well as uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our collaborators' or licensors' patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our collaborators' or licensors' issued patents. For example, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act), enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications filed after March 2013 are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to challenge the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. The USPTO has developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, particularly the first inventor-to-file provisions. Similarly, statutory or judicial changes to the patent laws of other countries may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. All of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe or otherwise violate our issued patents or other intellectual property or the patents or other intellectual property of our licensors and collaborators. In addition, our patents or the patents of our licensors and collaborators may become involved in inventorship or priority disputes. To counter infringement or other unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Significantly, our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Our ability to enforce patent rights also depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products and services. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor's or potential competitor's product or service. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents or that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. In a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent's claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our owned or licensed patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. We may find it impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed to our drug candidates, or one of our future drug candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or insufficient written description. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO or an equivalent foreign body, even outside the context of litigation. Potential proceedings include reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our technology or any drug candidates that we may develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent rights directed towards the applicable drug candidates or technology related to the patent rendered invalid or unenforceable. Such a loss of patent rights would materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be materially harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Some of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating our intellectual property. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, or in-license needed technology or other drug candidates. There could also be public announcements of the results of the hearing, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive those results to be negative, it could cause the price of shares of our common stock to decline. Any of the foregoing events could harm our business, financial condition, results of operation and prospects.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our drug candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the pharmaceutical industry. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our drug candidates and their manufacture and our other technology, including reexamination, interference, post-grant review, inter partes review or derivation proceedings before the USPTO or an equivalent foreign body. Numerous U.S.- and foreign-issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our drug candidates. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of claim scope, infringement, validity, enforceability or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that third-party patents asserted against us are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any drug candidates we may develop and any other drug candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party's intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such rights are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such a third party in order to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be or may become non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees for willful infringement, pay royalties and other fees, redesign our infringing drug candidate or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. Any of the foregoing events would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Many of our employees were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual's former employer. We may also be subject to claims that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions made on our behalf by our employees, consultants and advisors, even those related to one or more of our drug candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs, delay development of our drug candidates and be a distraction to management. Any of the foregoing events would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors or collaborators may have inventorship disputes arising from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our drug candidates. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our or our licensors' or collaborators' ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors or collaborators fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our drug candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The degree of future protection, if any, afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example: - others may be able to make products that are similar to any drug candidates we may develop or utilize similar technology but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we license or may own in the future;- we, or our current or future licensors or collaborators might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we license or may own in the future;- we, or our current or future licensors or collaborators might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our owned or licensed intellectual property rights;- it is possible that our pending owned or licensed patent applications or those that we may own or license in the future will not lead to issued patents;- issued patents that we hold rights to may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;- our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- the intellectual property rights of others may harm our business; and - we may choose not to file a patent in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent directed to such intellectual property. Should any of these events occur, they could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other fees are required to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of a patent. In certain circumstances, we rely on our collaborators or licensors to pay these fees. The USPTO and various foreign patent agencies also require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar requirements during the patent application and prosecution process. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official communications within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. While an inadvertent lapse can in some cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in irrevocable abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our drug candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. As noted above, some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including compromising our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize our drug candidates, if approved. Any of the foregoing events would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We rely on confidential methodologies and processes and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information and to maintain our competitive position. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, licensors, collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our drug candidates that we consider proprietary. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary information will be effective. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our confidential proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets, and we may need to share our trade secrets and proprietary know-how with current or future partners, collaborators, contractors and others located in countries at heightened risk of theft of trade secrets, including through direct intrusion by private parties or foreign actors, and those affiliated with or controlled by state actors. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed.