Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form Type: S-4/A
Source: 0001193125-25-113920
Chunk: 264

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form: S-4/A
Chunk 264
---
’s ability to develop and market its product candidates.

Kineta’s competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with Kineta’s ability to make, use and sell Kineta’s product candidates. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a considerable number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including Kineta, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If Kineta were sued for patent infringement, it would need to demonstrate that its product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and Kineta may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity may be difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity in court requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents, and there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. Even if Kineta were successful in these proceedings, it may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of its management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on Kineta’s business and operations. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of Kineta’s confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. In addition, Kineta may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

Kineta may choose to challenge the enforceability or validity of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-partere-exam, inter partesreview or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume Kineta’s time or other resources. Kineta may choose to challenge a third party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (the “EPO”), or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume Kineta’s time or other resources. If Kineta fails to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, the EPO or other patent office then