Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form Type: S-4/A
Source: 0001193125-25-113920
Chunk: 265

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form: S-4/A
Chunk 265
---
 Kineta may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by Kineta’s product candidates or proprietary technologies.

Kineta may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce its patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors or other third parties may infringe Kineta’s patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, Kineta may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of Kineta’s management and scientific personnel. Kineta’s 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. Any claims Kineta asserts against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against Kineta alleging that Kineta infringes their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that Kineta’s patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. 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. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of Kineta’s is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that Kineta does not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe**

<div align='center'>156</div>

**the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that Kineta does not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that Kineta’s patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of Kineta’s patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving Kineta’s patents could limit Kineta’s ability to assert its patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude Kineta’s ability