Company: BIAF
Filing Date: 2025-04-15
Form Type: DRS
Source: 0001641172-25-004915
Chunk: 62

Company: bioAffinity Technologies, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-04-15
Form: DRS
Chunk 62
---
 evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA, or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction, objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties, and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Risks Related to Government Regulations

CyPath ®Lung is currently being offered as an LDT by PPLS. Should the FDA disagree that CyPath ®Lung is an LDT, or if the FDA’s regulatory approach to LDTs should change in the future, our commercialization strategy may be adversely affected, which would negatively affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The FDA considers an LDT to be a test that is developed, validated, and performed within a single laboratory. The FDA has historically asserted its authority to regulate LDTs as medical devices under the FDCA, but it has generally exercised enforcement discretion with regard to LDTs. This means that even though the FDA believes it can impose regulatory requirements on LDTs, such as requirements to obtain premarket approval, de novoclassification, or clearance of LDTs, it has generally chosen not to enforce those requirements. The FDA has, on occasion, sent warning letters to laboratories offering LDTs that the agency believed were not eligible for enforcement discretion because of how they were developed, validated, performed, or marketed and consequent risks to the public.

On May 6, 2024, FDA promulgated a final rule phasing out over four years its enforcement discretion over LDTs. The agency states it will expect compliance with premarket