Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form Type: S-4
Source: 0001193125-25-022803
Chunk: 261

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form: S-4
Chunk 261
---
 of validity enjoyed by issued patents, and there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. Even if Kineta were successful in these proceedings, it may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of its management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on Kineta’s business and operations. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of Kineta’s confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. In addition, Kineta may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

Kineta may choose to challenge the enforceability or validity of claims in a third party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-partere-exam, inter partesreview or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume Kineta’s time or other resources. Kineta may choose to challenge a third party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (the “EPO”), or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume Kineta’s time or other resources. If Kineta fails to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, the EPO or other patent office then Kineta may be exposed to litigation by a third party alleging that the patent may be infringed by Kineta’s product candidates or proprietary technologies.

Kineta may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce its patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors or other third parties may infringe Kineta’s patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, Kineta may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of Kineta’s management and scientific personnel. Kineta’s 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. Any claims Kineta asserts against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against Kineta alleging that Kineta infringes their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that Kineta’s patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. 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