Company: VEEAW
Filing Date: 2025-04-15
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001213900-25-032215
Chunk: 253

Company: VEEA INC.
Filing Date: 2025-04-15
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 253
---
 to priority, validity, inventorship and enforceability disputes. If Veea or Veea’s
licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, such patent rights may be narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. The foregoing
could have a material adverse effect on Veea’s business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

For
example, if Veea or one of Veea’s licensors initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering any of
Veea’s products or Veea’s technology, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent
litigation in the U.S., 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, lack of written description
or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent
withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties also
may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms
include re-examination, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, post grant review, inter partes review and equivalent
proceedings such as opposition, invalidation and revocation proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Such proceedings could result in the
revocation or cancellation of or amendment to Veea’s patents in such a way that they no longer cover one or more of Veea’s
products or Veea’s technology or no longer prevent third parties from competing with any products Veea may develop or Veea’s
technology. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. Defense of these claims, regardless
of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a distraction to management and other employees. With respect
to the validity question, for example, Veea cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which the patent examiner and
Veea or Veea’s licensing partners were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity
or unenforceability, Veea could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of Veea’s products
or technology. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse effect on