Company: WHWK
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001628280-25-015269
Chunk: 105

Company: Whitehawk Therapeutics, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 105
---
.

We may be involved in lawsuits or other proceedings to protect or enforce our patents or intellectual property or our licensors’ patents or intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents or our licensors’ patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate our patents and other intellectual property rights. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or in-license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our products or product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent or the patent of our licensors is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. 

83

Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description, non-enablement, or obviousness-type double patenting. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution of the patent application.

Third parties may also raise similar invalidity claims before the USPTO or patent offices abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, PGR, IPR, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of or amendment to our patents or our licensors’ patents in such a way that such patents no longer cover our technology or platform, product or any product candidates that we may develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all