Company: BIVIW
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form Type: 424B5
Source: 0001520138-25-000247
Chunk: 52

Company: BIOVIE INC.
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form: 424B5
Chunk 52
---

patent disputes can be time-consuming and expensive.

Significantly, our pending patent applications
cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from
such applications. Our ability to enforce patent rights also depends on our ability to identify infringement. It may be difficult to identify
infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products and services. Moreover, it may
be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product or service.
Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe
their patents or that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. In a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent
of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party
from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding
could put one or more of our owned or licensed patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. We may
find it impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against
a third party to enforce a patent directed to our drug candidates, or one of our future drug candidates, the defendant could counterclaim
that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. 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 novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or insufficient written description. Grounds for a presentability assertion could
be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld material information from the USPTO or made a misleading
statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO or an equivalent foreign body, even outside
the context of litigation. Potential proceedings include reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings,
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 in such a way that they no longer cover our technology or any drug
candidates that we may develop. The outcome