Company: BLLN
Filing Date: 2025-06-20
Form Type: DRS
Source: 0000950123-25-006095
Chunk: 63

Company: BillionToOne, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-06-20
Form: DRS
Chunk 63
---
 addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our
patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop, manufacture or commercialize our current or future products, services or technology.

We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our products or technology. Publications of discoveries in the scientific
literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until approximately 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not until such patent applications
issue as patents. We might not have

44

been the first to make the inventions covered by each of our pending patent applications and we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. To determine the
priority of our inventions, we may participate in interference proceedings, derivation proceedings or other post-grant proceedings declared by the USPTO that could result in substantial cost to us. The outcome of such proceedings is uncertain. No
assurance can be given that other patent applications will not have priority over our patent applications. In addition, changes to the patent laws of the United States allow for various post-grant opposition proceedings that have not been
extensively tested, and their outcome is therefore uncertain. If third parties bring actions against our patent rights, we could experience significant costs and management distraction.

In patent litigation in the United States or abroad, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability of plaintiff’s patents are common. Grounds for
a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an
allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the patent office or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Similar claims may also be raised before patent offices in the United States or
abroad, even outside the context of litigation, through mechanisms including re-examination, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such
proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patent rights in such a way that they no longer cover our products. The outcome of patent litigation or patent office proceedings following 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