Company: APM
Filing Date: 2025-11-17
Form Type: F-1
Source: 0001213900-25-111548
Chunk: 79

Company: Aptorum Group Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-11-17
Form: F-1
Chunk 79
---
 that may be issued in the future from our patent applications, that relates to one of our drug and diagnostics technology candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent rights are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which another party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include ex parte re-examination, inter partesreview, post-grant review, derivation and equivalent proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our drug and diagnostics technology candidates. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, there may be invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel, 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 and diagnostics technology candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. We may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with IP litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other IP. Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging the inventorship of our patents or ownership of our IP, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other parties have an interest in our patents or other IP as inventors or co-inventors. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our drug and diagnostics technology candidates and who have not clearly contracted to transfer or assign any rights they may have to the Company. In addition, for our licensed patents, although a majority of our licensors have procured assignment forms and records from inventors to affirm their ownership in the licensed IP, another party or former employee or collaborator of our licensors not named in the patents may challenge