Company: LASE
Filing Date: 2025-06-24
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001641172-25-016194
Chunk: 209

Company: Laser Photonics Corp
Filing Date: 2025-06-24
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1
Chunk 209
---
    proprietary rights of others may have an adverse effect on our business;

    ●
    any
    proprietary rights we do obtain may not encompass commercially viable products, may not provide us with any competitive advantages
    or may be challenged by third parties;

    ●
    any
    patents we obtain, or our in-licensed issued patents, may not be valid or enforceable; or

    ●
    we
    may not develop additional technologies or products that are patentable or suitable to maintain as trade secrets.

    ●
    If
    we or our current licensors or licensees, or any future licensors or licensees, fail to prosecute, maintain and enforce patent protection
    for our product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates could be harmed and we might not be able
    to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. This failure to properly protect the intellectual property
    rights relating to our product candidates could harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Moreover, our competitors
    may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.

Even
where laws provide protection, costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary
rights, and the outcome of such litigation would be uncertain. If we or one of our collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against
a third party to enforce a patent covering the product candidate, the defendant could assert an affirmative defense or counterclaim that
our patent is not infringed, invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant defenses and counterclaims
alleging non-infringement, 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, anticipation or obviousness, and lack of written description,
definiteness or enablement. Patents may be unenforceable if someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld material information
from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcomes of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and
unenforceability are unpredictable. It is possible that prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution
exists, which would render our patents invalid. Moreover, it is also possible that prior art may exist that we are aware of, but that
we do not believe are relevant to our current or future patents, that could nevertheless be determined to render our patents