Company: DNLI
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001714899-25-000193
Chunk: 364

Company: Denali Therapeutics Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part II, Item 1A
Chunk 364
---
 of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future. For example, in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. For example, the IRA passed by Congress authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") to negotiate prices directly with participating manufacturers for selected medicines covered by Medicare even if these medicines are protected by an existing patent. For small molecule medicines, the process begins seven years after initial approval by the FDA. While we do not believe that the IRA or its effects will impact our ability to obtain patents in the near future, we cannot be certain whether it will affect our patent strategy in the long run.

80

Issued patents covering our TV platform, product candidates and other technologies could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad.

If we or one of our licensors initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our TV platform, product candidates or other technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable or raise a defense to infringement. 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 subject matter eligibility for patenting, novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. 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. Grounds for defenses to infringement include statutory exemptions to patent infringement for uses related to submitting information to regulatory authorities to seek certain regulatory approvals. Third parties may raise claims challenging the validity or enforceability of our owned or in-licensed patents before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation