Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form Type: S-4
Source: 0001193125-25-022803
Chunk: 155

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form: S-4
Chunk 155
---
URA to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. TuHURA’s business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer TuHURA a license on commercially reasonable terms. Litigation, interference, or derivation proceedings may result in a decision adverse to TuHURA’s interests and, even if it is successful, may result in substantial costs and distract its management and other employees.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of TuHURA’s confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of shares of TuHURA Common Stock.

Issued patents covering TuHURA’s product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before the USPTO or comparable foreign authority.

If TuHURA or one of its licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of TuHURA’s product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering TuHURA’s product candidate is 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 a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition or derivation proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to TuHURA’s patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect its product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of TuHURA’s patents, for example, TuHURA cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which it, its 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, TuHURA would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on its product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse