Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-05-23
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001193125-25-125499
Chunk: 256

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-05-23
Form: 424B3
Chunk 256
---
 may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. There
is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and even if Kineta is successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to Kineta’s management and other employees.

Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing Kineta’s ability to protect its product candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, Kineta’s success is heavily
dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently

157

uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs, and may diminish Kineta’s ability to
protect its inventions, obtain, maintain and enforce its intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of its intellectual property or narrow the scope of Kineta’s owned and licensed patents. Patent reform legislation
in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”), signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of
Kineta’s patent applications and the enforcement or defense of Kineta’s issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are
prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and
additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partesreview and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these
USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim
invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate Kineta’s patent claims that
would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district