Ceribell, Inc. (CBLL) Risk Analysis

Our trademarks could be challenged, opposed, invalidated, infringed, and circumvented by third parties, and our trademarks could also be diluted, declared generic or descriptive, or found to be infringing on other marks. If any of the foregoing occurs, we could be forced to re-brand our company, products, services, or technologies, resulting in loss of brand recognition and requiring us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands, and suffer other competitive harm. Third parties may also adopt trademarks similar to ours, which could harm our brand identity and lead to market confusion. Further, there can be no assurance that competitors will not infringe our trademarks or that we will have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. Certain of our current or future trademarks may become so well known by the public that their use becomes generic and they lose trademark protection. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. We rely on our trademarks, trade names, and brand names, such as our Clarity mark, to distinguish our products, services, and technologies from the products, services, and technologies of our competitors, and have registered or applied to register many of these trademarks in the United States and certain countries outside the United States; however, we have not yet registered all of our trademarks in all of our current and potential markets. There can be no assurance that all of our trademark applications will be approved for registration. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we are given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in proceedings before the USPTO and comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties have opposed and may oppose in the future further our trademark applications and may seek to cancel trademark registrations or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademark filings in these agencies, and such filings may not survive such proceedings. While we may be able to continue the use of our trademarks in the event registration is not available, particularly in the United States, where trademark rights are acquired based on use and not registration, third parties may be able to enjoin the continued use of our trademarks if such parties are able to successfully claim infringement in court. In addition, opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademark applications and registrations and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we do not secure registrations for our trademarks, we may encounter more difficulty in enforcing them against third parties than we otherwise would. Our trademarks or trade names may be infringed, circumvented, declared generic, or determined to be violating or infringing on other marks.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, know-how, and/or other proprietary information that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect, and some courts are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. To protect and maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets and other proprietary information, we rely heavily on confidentiality provisions that we have in contracts with our employees, consultants, collaborators, and other third parties. We generally enter into confidentiality and inventions assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and applicable third parties upon their commencement of a relationship with us. However, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes, and we may not enter into such agreements with all employees, consultants, and third parties who have been involved in the development of our inventions. Although we generally require all of our employees, consultants, advisors, and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets. In addition, despite the protections we place on our intellectual property and our other proprietary rights, monitoring unauthorized use and disclosure by employees, consultants, and other third parties who have access to such intellectual property or other proprietary rights is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property or other proprietary rights will be adequate. Therefore, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical knowledge or other trade secrets by such employees, consultants, advisors, or third parties, despite the existence of our protections, including non-disclosure and use restrictions. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection against the unauthorized disclosure or use or of our trade secrets, know-how, or other proprietary information in the event the unwanted use is outside the scope of the provisions of the contracts or in the event of any unauthorized use, misappropriation, or disclosure of such trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information that we fail to detect. There can be no assurances that such employees, consultants, advisors, or third parties will not intentionally or unintentionally breach their agreements with us, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or independently developed by third parties, including our competitors. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that information to compete with us. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and electronic security of our information technology systems. Such security measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee, consultant or other third party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee, consultant, or other third party from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed. The exposure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information would impair our competitive advantages and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In particular, a failure to protect our proprietary rights may allow competitors to copy our products, services, or technologies, which could adversely affect our pricing and market share. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our products, services, or technologies that we consider proprietary. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our trade secret rights and related confidentiality, non-disclosure, and non-use provisions, and outcomes of such litigation are unpredictable. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed, used or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. While we use commonly accepted security measures, trade secret violations are often a combination of federal and state law in the United States, and the criteria for protection of trade secrets can vary among different jurisdictions. If the steps we have taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. In addition, some courts are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets and agreement terms that address non-competition are difficult to enforce in many jurisdictions and might not be enforceable in certain cases. Finally, even if we were to be successful on the enforcement of our claims, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies. It is also possible that others may independently develop information or technologies that are the same as or similar to our trade secrets or other proprietary technologies and develop products, services, or technologies without obtaining access to our trade secrets or other proprietary information in which case we could not assert any intellectual property rights, including trade secret rights, against such parties in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. If we fail to obtain or maintain trade secret protection, or if any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or used by others without our consent or otherwise misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, or if our competitors obtain our trade secrets or independently develop products, services, or technologies that are the same as or similar to ours, our competitive market position could be materially and adversely harmed.

The "brain stethoscope" EEG sonification technology, which processes data and turns it into sound, that is used in the Ceribell System is protected by intellectual property rights that we in-license from Stanford University. See the section titled "Business-Stanford Agreement." Our rights to use such intellectual property rights in our business are subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of the license agreements between us and each of our licensors. In addition, the agreements under which we in-license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. 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 have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have in-licensed, or in-license in the future, prevent, or impair our ability to maintain our licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Despite our best efforts, our current or future licensors might conclude that we materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, this could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. A third party may hold intellectual property rights, including patent rights, that are important or necessary to the development, manufacture, commercialization, import or use of our current and/or future products, services, or technologies, in which case we would need to acquire or obtain a license to such intellectual property rights from such third party. A third party that perceives us to be a competitor may be unwilling to license or assign its intellectual property rights to us. In addition, the licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and other companies may also pursue similar strategies to license or acquire such third party's intellectual property rights. Some of these companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater development, manufacturing, and commercialization capabilities. We also may be unable to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights on commercially reasonable terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment, or we may be unable to obtain any such license or acquisition at all. If we are unable to successfully license or acquire necessary third-party intellectual property rights, we may not be able to develop, manufacture, commercialize, import, or use our current and/or future products, services, or technologies, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may also be subject to claims that our current or former employees, contractors, or other third parties have an ownership interest in our current or future patents, patent applications, or other intellectual property rights, including as an inventor or co-inventor. We may be subject to ownership or inventorship disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of employees,consultants, or others who were or are involved in developing our products, services, or technologies. Although it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of inventions to execute agreements assigning such inventions and intellectual property rights therein to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops inventions that we regard as our own, and we cannot be certain that our agreements with such parties will be upheld in the face of a potential challenge, or that they will not be breached, for which we may not have an adequate remedy. The assignment of inventions may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership of inventorship. If we 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 the right to use, valuable intellectual property rights, and other owners may be able to license their interest in such intellectual property rights to other third parties, including our competitors. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. 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. In addition, we may be subject to claims from third parties challenging inventorship or ownership of intellectual property rights we regard as our own, based on claims that our agreements with employees or consultants obligating them to assign their inventions and intellectual property rights therein to us are ineffective or in conflict with prior or competing contractual obligations to assign inventions and intellectual property rights therein to another employer, to a former employer, or to another person or entity. Many of our current and former employees and consultants were previously employed at or engaged by other medical device companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees and consultants have executed with such previous employment or engagements confidential information non-disclosure and non-use agreements and inventions assignment agreements, which may have included non-competition provisions. Although we try to ensure that such employees and consultants do not use or otherwise disclose confidential information or intellectual property rights of others in their work for us without such other person's consent, we may be subject to claims that we or our current or former employees or consultants have, inadvertently or otherwise, infringed, violated, or otherwise misappropriated the confidential information or the intellectual property rights of these former employers, clients, or other third parties. To the extent that our current or former employees or consultants disclose or use confidential information or intellectual property rights owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in any related or resulting inventions and litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. It may also be necessary or we may desire to obtain a license to such third party's intellectual property rights to settle any such claim; however, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain such license on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If our defense to those claims fails, in addition to paying monetary damages or a settlement payment, a court could prohibit us from manufacturing, commercializing, using or importing the product, service, or technology features or practicing other intellectual property rights that are essential to our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position as well as our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In addition, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and could be a distraction to management and our employees. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with collaborators, partners, services provides, or contractors. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to develop, manufacture, commercialize, import, or use our products, services, or technologies, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to develop, manufacture, commercialize, import, or use our products, services, and technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. Our industry has been characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property rights, and companies in the industry have used intellectual property litigation to gain a competitive advantage. While we take steps to ensure that we do not infringe upon, misappropriate, or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others, there may be other more pertinent rights of which we are presently unaware. Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights. The outcomes of such proceedings are uncertain and could have a negative impact on the success of our business. It is possible that U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications controlled by third parties may be alleged to cover our products, services, and technologies, or that we may be accused of misappropriating third parties' trade secrets or infringing third parties' trademarks. We may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products, services, or technologies, including interference proceedings, post grant review, and inter partes review before the USPTO or equivalent foreign regulatory authority. Furthermore, we may also become involved in other proceedings, such as reexamination, derivation, or opposition proceedings before the USPTO or other jurisdictional body relating to our intellectual property rights or the intellectual property rights of others. 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. Because patent applications can take many years to issue and because publication schedules for pending applications vary by jurisdiction, there may be applications now pending of which we are unaware and which may result in issued patents, which our current or future products, services, or technologies infringe. Also, because the claims of published patent applications can change between publication and patent grant, there may be published patent applications that may ultimately issue with claims that we infringe. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid and enforceable, and infringed by the use of our products, services, or technologies, which could have a negative impact on the commercial success of our current and any future products, services, or technologies. If we were to challenge the validity of any such third-party 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. We will have similar burdens to overcome in foreign courts in order to successfully challenge a third-party claim of patent infringement. Our defense of any litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, defending such claims brought against us would cause us to incur substantial expenses and distract our management and other employees. If such claims are successfully asserted against us, we could be forced to pay substantial damages. Further, if a patent infringement or other intellectual property rights-related lawsuit were brought against us, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, commercializing, importing, or using the infringing product, service, or technology. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. Although patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property disputes have often been settled through licensing or similar arrangements, costs associated with such arrangements may be substantial and could include ongoing royalties. We may not be able to obtain licenses on commercially reasonable terms or at all, in which event our business would be materially and adversely affected. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors and other third parties gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, if we are unable to obtain such licenses or make any necessary changes to our products, services, or technologies, we could be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, which could harm our business significantly. A finding of infringement or an unfavorable interference or derivation proceedings outcome could prevent us from developing, manufacturing, commercializing, importing, or using our products, services, or technologies, or force us to cease some or all of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation or administrative proceedings more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. We could encounter delays in product introductions while we attempt to develop alternative products or technologies. If third parties assert infringement, misappropriation, or other claims against our customers, these claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of our customers, regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed or settle, we may be forced to pay damages or settlement payments on behalf of our customers or may be required to obtain licenses for the products, services, or technologies they use. If we cannot obtain all necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our customers may be forced to stop using our products, services, or technologies. Our competitors, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios, trade secrets, trademarks, and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained, or may in the future apply for or obtain, patents or trademarks that will prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use, sell, import, and/or export our products, services, or technologies. As the number of competitors in our market grows and the number of patents issued in this area increases, the possibility of patent infringement claims against us may increase. Moreover, individuals and groups that are non-practicing entities, commonly referred to as "patent trolls," purchase patents, and other intellectual property assets for the purpose of making claims of infringement in order to extract settlements. From time to time, we may receive threatening letters, notices or "invitations to license," or may be the subject of claims that our products, services, or technologies and business operations infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others. These matters can be time-consuming, costly to defend in litigation, divert management's attention and resources, damage our reputation and brand, and cause us to incur significant expenses or make substantial payments. In addition, we purchase product components, including hardware and software, from suppliers, and the design of these components may be outside of our direct control. These suppliers may not indemnify us in the event that a third party alleges the use of such components infringes its intellectual property rights. Any lawsuits relating to intellectual property rights could subject us to significant liability for damages and invalidate our intellectual property. Any potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following: - stop developing, making, selling, importing, or using products, services, or technologies that allegedly infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate the asserted intellectual property right;- pay substantial damages or royalties to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating;- redesign those products, services, or technologies that contain the allegedly infringing intellectual property, which could be costly, disruptive, and infeasible; and attempt to obtain a license to the relevant intellectual property rights from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or from third parties who may attempt to license rights that they do not have;- lose the opportunity to license our intellectual property rights to others or to collect royalty payments based upon successful protection and assertion of our intellectual property rights against others;- incur significant legal expenses; or - pay the attorney's fees and costs of litigation to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, inter partes review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (for example, opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our products, services, or technologies. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we may lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our products, services, or technologies. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. 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 litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearing, motions, or other interim developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of shares of our common stock. Even if we ultimately prevail, a court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, even if resolved in our favor, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business. Any of the foregoing may cause us to incur substantial costs and could place a significant strain on our financial resources, divert the attention of management from our core business, and harm our reputation.

Third parties, including our competitors, may currently, or in the future, infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate our issued patents or other intellectual property rights, and we may file lawsuits or initiate other proceedings to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming, and unsuccessful. We regularly monitor for unauthorized use of our intellectual property rights and, from time to time, analyze whether to seek to enforce our rights against potential infringement, misappropriation, or violation of our intellectual property rights. However, the steps we have taken, and are taking, to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to enforce our rights as against such infringement, misappropriation, or violation of our intellectual property rights. In certain circumstances it may not be practicable or cost-effective for us to enforce our intellectual property rights fully, particularly in certain developing countries or where the initiation of a claim might harm our business relationships. We may also be hindered or prevented from enforcing our rights with respect to a government entity or instrumentality because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Our ability to enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights 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, services, or technologies. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor's or potential competitor's product, services, or technologies. Thus, we may not be able to detect unauthorized use of, or take appropriate steps to enforce, our intellectual property rights. Any inability to meaningfully enforce our intellectual property rights could harm our ability to compete and reduce demand for our products, services, and technologies. We may in the future become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could harm our business. In any lawsuit we bring to enforce our intellectual property rights, a court may refuse to stop the other party from manufacturing, commercializing, using or importing the product, service, offering or technology at issue on grounds that our intellectual property rights do not cover, and the other party is not infringing, violating or otherwise misappropriating our intellectual property, through the manufacture, commercialization, use or importation of the product, service, offering or technology in question. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights. If we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering a product, service, offering or technology, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are common, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of patentable subject matter, novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Mechanisms for such challenges include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). In a patent or other intellectual property proceeding, a court may decide that a patent or other intellectual property right of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent's claims or other intellectual property narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from manufacturing, commercializing, using or importing the product, service, offering, or technology at issue on the grounds that our patents or other intellectual property do not cover the manufacture, commercialization, use, or importation of the product, service, offering, or technology in question. Furthermore, even if our patents or other intellectual property rights are found to be valid and infringed, a court may refuse to grant injunctive relief against the infringer and instead grant us monetary damages and/or ongoing royalties. Such monetary compensation may be insufficient to adequately offset the damage to our business caused by the infringer's competition in the market. An adverse result in any litigation or administrative proceeding could put one or more of our patents or other intellectual property rights at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, which could adversely affect our competitive business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, even if we are successful in any litigation, we may incur significant expense in connection with such proceedings, and the amount of any monetary damages may be inadequate to compensate us for damage as a result of the infringement and the proceedings.

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on our products, services, and technologies in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. 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 patent protection to develop their own products, services, or technologies and, further, may export otherwise infringing products, services, or technologies to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products, services, or technologies may compete with our products, services, or technologies, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent such competition. Various companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries may not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to medical devices and related services and technologies, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products, services, and technologies in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights. In addition, some jurisdictions, such as Europe, Japan, and China, may have a higher standard for patentability than in the United States, including, for example, imposing a high standard for making claim amendments and for the submission of supplemental experimental data during patent examination. Under those heightened patentability requirements, we may not be able to obtain sufficient patent protection in certain jurisdictions even though the same or similar patent protection can be secured in the United States and other jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patent rights at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our owned or in-licensed 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. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Various countries outside the United States, including certain countries in Europe, India, and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. As a result, a patent owner in such countries may have limited remedies in certain circumstances, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. 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. Further, the standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied predictably. As such, we do not know the degree of world-wide uniform protection that we will have on our technologies and products in the future.

Our ability to obtain patents and the breadth of any patents obtained is uncertain in part because, to date, some legal principles remain unresolved, and there has not been a consistent policy regarding the breadth or interpretation of claims allowed in patents in the United States and other countries. Changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property rights or narrow the scope of our patent protection, which in turn could diminish the commercial value of our products, services, and technologies. Patent reform legislation may pass in the future that could lead to additional uncertainties and increased costs surrounding the prosecution, enforcement, and defense of our patents and applications. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws of the United States are interpreted. 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. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on actions by the United States Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we own or that we might obtain or license in the future. An inability to obtain, enforce, and defend patents covering our proprietary technologies would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Similarly, foreign courts have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws in their respective jurisdictions are interpreted. Changes in patent laws and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions, changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them, or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we own or may obtain in the future. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. In addition, any protection afforded by foreign patents may be more limited than that provided under U.S. patent and intellectual property laws. We may encounter significant problems in enforcing and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. For example, if the issuance in a given country of a patent covering an invention is not followed by the issuance in other countries of patents covering the same invention, or if any judicial interpretation of the validity, enforceability or scope of the claims or the written description or enablement in a patent issued in one country is not similar to the interpretation given to the corresponding patent issued in other countries, our ability to protect our intellectual property rights in those countries may be limited. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws in the United States and other countries or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by U.S. and foreign legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect our patents or patent applications and our ability to obtain additional patent protection in the future. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In June 2023, the European Unitary Patent system and the European Unified Patent Court ("UPC") were launched. European patent applications now have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which is subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC. In addition, conventional European patents, both already granted at the time the new system began and granted thereafter, are subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC, unless actively opted out. This was a significant change in European patent practice, and deciding whether to opt-in or opt-out of Unitary Patent practice entail strategic and cost considerations. The UPC provides third parties with a new forum to centrally revoke our European patents and makes it possible for a third party to obtain pan-European injunctions against us. 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. While we have the right to opt our patents out of the UPC over the first seven years of the court's existence, doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the UPC. Moreover, the decision whether to opt-in or opt-out of Unitary Patent status will require coordinating with co-applicants, if any, adding complexity to any such decision. The legal systems in certain countries may also favor state-sponsored or companies headquartered in particular jurisdictions over our first-in-time patents and other intellectual property protection. We are aware of incidents where such entities have stolen the intellectual property of domestic companies in order to create competing products and we believe we may face such circumstances ourselves in the future. For example, through its "Annual Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property," the Office of the United States Trade Representative has been reporting on the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection in a number of foreign countries that are U.S. trading partners and their protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Placement of a country on the Priority Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to intellectual property protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property rights. Countries placed on the Priority Watch List are the focus of increased bilateral attention concerning the specific problem areas. It is possible that we will not be able to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties that misappropriate our proprietary technology in those countries.

The USPTO, and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In addition, periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other government fees on issued patents often must be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of the patent and/or applications and any patent rights we may obtain in the future. While an unintentional lapse of a patent or patent application can in many 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 abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees, and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our patent licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications that we in-license, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing products, services, or technologies that are the same as or similar to our products, services, or technologies, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We rely in part on our portfolio of issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States and other countries to protect our intellectual property and competitive position. However, it is also possible that we may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of the development, manufacture, and commercial activities conducted by or on behalf of us before it is too late to obtain patent protection on such inventions. If we fail to timely file for patent protection in any jurisdiction, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, suppliers, consultants, advisors, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Moreover, should we become a licensee of a third party's patents or patent applications, depending on the terms of any future in-licenses to which we may become a party, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain or enforce the patents, covering technology in-licensed from third parties. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted, maintained, and/or enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. While we generally apply for patents in those countries where we intend to make, have made, use, import, offer for sale, or sell our products or services or otherwise practice our technology, we may not accurately predict all of the countries where patent protection will ultimately be desirable. Furthermore, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from importing, using, manufacturing, and/or commercializing our own products or services, or otherwise practicing our own technology. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. The patent positions of companies, including our patent position, may involve complex legal and factual questions that have been the subject of much litigation in recent years, and, therefore, the scope of any patent claims that we have or may obtain cannot be predicted with certainty. Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurances about which of our patent applications will issue, the breadth of any resulting patent, whether any of the issued patents will be found to be infringed, invalid, or unenforceable or will be threatened or challenged by third parties, that any of our issued patents have, or that any of our currently pending or future patent applications that mature into issued patents will include, claims with a scope sufficient to protect our products, services, or technology. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in the issuance of patents or, if issued, may not issue in a form that will be advantageous to us. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. We cannot offer any assurances that the breadth of our issued patents will be sufficient to stop a competitor from developing, manufacturing, and commercializing one or more products, services, or technologies in a non-infringing manner that would be competitive with one or more of our products, services, or technologies, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Furthermore, any successful challenge to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us after patent issuance could deprive us of rights necessary for our commercial success. Further, there can be no assurance that we will have adequate resources to enforce our patents. Though an issued patent is presumed valid and enforceable, its issuance is not conclusive as to its validity or its enforceability and it may not provide us with adequate proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar products or services. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, deemed unenforceable, invalidated, narrowed, or circumvented. Proceedings challenging our patents or patent applications could result in either loss of the patent, or denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of the patent or patent application. Any successful challenge to our patents and patent applications could deprive us of exclusive rights necessary for our commercial success. In addition, defending such challenges in such proceedings may be costly. Thus, any patents that we own or in-license may not provide the anticipated level of, or any, protection against competitors. Furthermore, an adverse decision may result in a third party receiving a patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, manufacture, commercialize, import, or otherwise use our products, services, or technologies. Some of our patents and patent applications are and, may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third- party co-owners' interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products, services, or technologies. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.