Our success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the proprietary technologies of others. We respect the valid patent rights of third parties of which we are aware. The pharmaceutical industry has been characterized by frequent litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our proprietary technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. Additionally, because patent applications are maintained in secrecy until the application is published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of PAX-101 or any of our other product candidates. There may be certain issued patents and patent applications claiming subject matter that we may be required to license in order to research, develop or commercialize PAX-101 or our other product candidates, and we do not know if such patents and patent applications would be available to license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time-consuming and may:
- result in costly litigation;- divert the time and attention of our technical personnel and management;- prevent us from commercializing a product until the asserted patent expires or is held finally invalid or not infringed in a court of law;- require us to cease or modify our use of the technology and/or develop non-infringing technology; or - require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements.
Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that we would be successful in defending against these claims of patent infringement. For example, if we were required to modify our use of the technology or develop an alternative non-infringing technology, we cannot be certain that we would be successful in making the modifications or developing the technology and whether it would be economically feasible or practical to do so. Also, it may not be possible to obtain royalty or licensing agreements on favorable terms or to obtain such agreements at all.
Although no third-party has asserted a claim of infringement against us, others may hold proprietary rights that could prevent our product candidates from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to our product candidates or our processes could subject us to potential liability for damages and require us to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market PAX-101 or any other product candidates. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, we cannot be sure that we could redesign PAX-101 or any other product candidates or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary.
We are aware of PCT international patent application PCT/US2018/017674, titled "Methods for Autism Spectrum Disorder Pharmacotherapy", which lists Perfect Daylight Limited and The Regents of the University of California as Applicants, filed on February 9, 2018, published as WO 2018/148580 on August 16, 2018, and claiming priority to U.S. provisional patent application no. 62/457,120, filed on February 9, 2017. The patent application describes compositions of antipurinergic agents, such as suramin, and methods of use for treating cognitive developmental disorders and autism spectrum disorder. From publicly available databases, we are aware that a U.S. nonprovisional patent application of this PCT patent application, U.S. application Serial No. 16/537,397, was filed in the United States and was subsequently abandoned in favor of U.S. application Serial No. 18/323,375, filed Mary 24, 2023 and U.S. application Serial No. 18/414,171, filed January 16, 2024. The European equivalent of the application was granted as EP3579836 on December 15, 2021 and was validated in Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Switzerland. A Chinese application, CN201880024535.9, is also pending. Because patent applications of PCT/US2018/017674 are still pending at least in the United States and China, it is not certain if any patents will ultimately issue from these applications nor is it possible to predict the resultant claim scope of any such issued patent. We will continue to monitor the prosecution of these patent applications from publicly available documents.
We are also aware of PCT international patent application PCT/US2018/017200, titled "Antipurinergic Compounds and Uses thereof," which lists CSP Pharma, Inc. as Applicant, filed on February 7, 2018, published as WO 2018/148262 on August 16, 2018, and claiming priority to U.S. provisional patent application no. 62/456,438, filed on February 8, 2017. The patent application describes compositions and methods for treating neurodevelopmental disorders. The compositions contain an APT, such as suramin, and a carrier formulated for non-intravenous administration. The neurodevelopmental disorders include ASD. From publicly available databases, we are aware that a national phase application of this PCT patent application, U.S. application Serial No. 16/484,284 was filed in the United States. However, the US Patent Office issued a Notice of Abandonment on August 12, 2021 for applicant's failure to respond to the office action of January 14, 2021. No further child applications are listed as pending.
We are also aware of PCT international patent application PCT/US2017/041932, titled "Diagnostic and Methods of Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorders," which lists The Regents of the University of California as Applicant, filed on July 13, 2017, published as WO 2018/013811 on January 18, 2018, and claiming priority to U.S. provisional patent application nos. 62/464,369, filed on February 27, 2017 and 62/362,564, filed on July 14, 2016. The patent application describes biomarkers for diagnosing and predicting the development of chronic fatigue syndrome and methods of treating a mitochondrial disease or disorder, such as ASD, by administering an effective amount of an APT, such as suramin. Publicly available databases show no pending US or national or regional phase patent applications.
As discussed above, our success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the proprietary technologies of others. We are aware of the risks associated with the valid patent rights of third parties, however, identification of these third party proprietary technologies and patent rights is difficult because patent searching is imperfect. Also, because patent applications are maintained in secrecy until publication, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of PAX-101 or any of our other product candidates. Based on as yet unforeseen activities associated with the intellectual property of such third parties we may have to make modifications to our development plans, the filing of new patent applications and the prosecution of our patent portfolio, and our business.
A number of companies, including several major pharmaceutical companies, have conducted research on APTs and their effect on purinergic receptors and potential therapies which resulted in the filing of many patent applications related to this research. If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued United States patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every issued United States patent. This means that, in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent's claims.
If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued United States patent in an administrative trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, we would have to prove that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, even if we were successful in such an invalidity challenge, the decision could be appealed by the other party to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could involve significant resources to litigate and we cannot predict whether we would prevail on appeal. There is no assurance that a jury and/or court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity or enforceability.
Accordingly, if patents exist or are in the future granted that conflict with our patents, and if we face an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or if we are unable to obtain necessary licenses, we could be prevented from developing and commercializing PAX-101 or another product candidate, which in turn would harm the viability of our company and our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results.