Unity Biotechnology (UBX) Risk Factors

As of September 30, 2024, we own, co-own, or have an exclusive license in certain fields of use to more than 170 patents and pending applications in the United States and foreign jurisdictions. This portfolio includes 34 issued and allowed U.S. patents and applications and 68 granted and allowed foreign patents and applications, respectively. A composition of matter patent filing claiming the specific chemical structure of UBX1325 was issued in the U.S. on April 20, 2021, which will extend our loss of exclusivity on this molecule to 2039, not including any patent term adjustment or patent term extensions to which it may be entitled. We have not pursued or maintained, and may not pursue or maintain in the future, patent protection for our products in every country or territory in which we may sell our products. In addition, we cannot be sure that any of our pending patent applications or pending trademark applications will issue or that, if issued, they will issue in a form that will be advantageous to us. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), international patent offices or judicial bodies may deny, or significantly narrow claims made under our patent applications and our issued patents may be successfully challenged, may be designed around, or may otherwise be of insufficient scope to provide us with protection for our commercial products. Further, the USPTO, international trademark offices or judicial bodies may deny our trademark applications and, even if published or registered, these trademarks may not effectively protect our brand and goodwill. Like patents, trademarks also may be successfully opposed or challenged. We cannot be certain that the steps we have taken will prevent unauthorized use or unauthorized reverse engineering of our technology. Moreover, third parties may independently develop technologies that are competitive with ours and such competitive technologies may or may not infringe our intellectual property. The enforcement of our intellectual property rights also depends on the success of our legal actions against these infringers in the respective country or forum, but these actions may not be successful. As with all granted intellectual property, such intellectual property may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, may not provide specific protection and/or may not prove to be enforceable in actions against specific alleged infringers. The market for biopharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals, and treatments for diseases of aging is highly competitive and subject to rapid technological change. Our success depends, in part, upon our ability to maintain a competitive position in the development and protection of technologies and products for use in these fields and upon our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights in connection therewith. We seek to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property rights to restrict the ability of others to market products that misappropriate our technology and/or infringe our intellectual property to unfairly and illegally compete with our products. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, our competitive position and our business could be harmed, as third parties may be able to make, use, or sell products that are substantially the same as ours without incurring the sizeable development and licensing costs that we have incurred, which would adversely affect our ability to compete in the market. We use a combination of patents, trademarks, know-how, confidentiality procedures, and contractual provisions to protect our proprietary technology. However, these protections may not be adequate and may not provide us with any competitive advantage. For example, patents may not issue from any of our currently pending or any future patent applications, and our issued patents and any future patents that may issue may not survive legal challenges to their scope, validity or enforceability, or provide significant protection for us. If we or one of our current or future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our current drug candidates or future drug candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/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 or nonenablement. 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, even outside the context of litigation. 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 and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our drug candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business. Even if our patents are determined by a court to be valid and enforceable, they may not be interpreted sufficiently broadly to prevent others from marketing products similar to ours or designing around our patents. For example, third parties may be able to make products that are similar to ours but that are not covered by the claims of our patents. Third parties may assert that we or our licensors were not the first to make the inventions covered by our issued patents or pending patent applications. The claims of our issued patents or patent applications when issued may not cover our proposed commercial technologies or the future products that we develop. We may not have freedom to commercialize unimpeded by the patent rights of others. Third parties may have dominating, blocking, or other patents relevant to our technology of which we are not aware. There may be prior public disclosures or art that could be deemed to invalidate one or more of our patent claims. Further, we may not develop additional proprietary technologies in the future, and, if we do, they may not be patentable. Patent law can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important principles remain unresolved. In the United States and in many international jurisdictions, policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in patents can be inconsistent. The U.S. Supreme Court and the 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. Similarly, international courts have made, and will likely continue to make, changes in how the patent laws in their respective jurisdictions are interpreted. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by U.S. and international legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect our patents, our ability to obtain patents or the patents and patent applications of our licensors. Patent reform legislation in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, may affect patent litigation, and switch the U.S. patent system from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-to-file" system. Under a "first-to-file" system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently 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, and in particular, the first-to-file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. In addition, we have a number of international patents and patent applications and expect to continue to pursue patent protection in many of the significant markets in which we intend to do business. The laws of some international jurisdictions may not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in obtaining, protecting, and defending such rights in international jurisdictions. If we encounter such difficulties or we are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting our intellectual property rights in international jurisdictions, our business prospects could be substantially harmed. Varying filing dates in international countries may also permit intervening third parties to allege priority to certain technology. Patent terms may be shortened or lengthened by, for example, terminal disclaimers, patent term adjustments, supplemental protection certificates, and patent term extensions. Patent term extensions and supplemental protection certificates, and the like, may be impacted by the regulatory process and may not significantly lengthen the patent term. Non-payment or delay in payment of patent fees or annuities, delay in patent filings or delay in extension filing (including any patent term extension or adjustment filing), whether intentional or unintentional, may also result in the loss of patent rights important to our business. Certain countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to other parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against other parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of any patents. In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on confidentiality agreements to protect confidential information and proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our drug candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our confidential information or proprietary technology and processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and other confidential information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of confidential information and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated confidential information is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Further, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our confidential information may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors, in which case we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. We may in the future rely on trade secret protection, which would be subject to the risks identified above with respect to confidential information. Monitoring unauthorized use of our intellectual property is difficult and costly. From time to time, we review our competitors' products, and may in the future seek to enforce our patents or other rights against potential infringement. However, the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property. We may not be able to detect unauthorized use of, or take appropriate steps to enforce, our intellectual property rights. Our competitors may also independently develop similar technology. Any inability to meaningfully protect our intellectual property could result in competitors offering products that incorporate our product or service features, which could reduce demand for our products. In addition, we may need to defend our patents from third-party challenges, such as (but not limited to) interferences, derivation proceedings, reexamination proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, third-party submissions, oppositions, nullity actions or other patent proceedings. We may need to initiate infringement claims or litigation. Adverse proceedings such as litigation can be expensive, time consuming and may divert the efforts of our technical and managerial personnel, which could in turn harm our business, whether or not we receive a determination favorable to us. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court or other judicial body may decide that the patent we seek to enforce is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that the patent in question does not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Some of our competitors may be able to devote significantly more resources to intellectual property litigation and may have significantly broader patent portfolios to assert against us if we assert our rights against them. Further, because of the substantial discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be disclosed or otherwise compromised during litigation. We may not be able to correctly estimate or control our future operating expenses in relation to obtaining intellectual property, enforcing intellectual property and/or defending intellectual property, which could affect operating expenses. Our operating expenses may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, including the costs of preparing, filing, prosecuting, defending, and enforcing patent and trademark claims and other intellectual property-related costs, including adverse proceedings (such as litigation) costs.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect 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. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or 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 conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

We may not be able to protect our proprietary information and technology adequately. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our proprietary information, technology, and know-how, our employees, consultants, contractors and outside scientific advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our proprietary information, technology or know-how is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect proprietary information, technology, and know-how. We rely, in part, on non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and other parties to protect our proprietary information, technology, and know-how. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. Moreover, others may independently develop similar or equivalent proprietary information, and third parties may otherwise gain access to our proprietary knowledge.

We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. 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 distraction to management and other employees.