Company: CMND
Filing Date: 2025-01-22
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0001213900-25-005490
Chunk: 74

Company: Clearmind Medicine Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-01-22
Form: 20-F
Item: Item 3
Chunk 74
---
 clinical development and commercialization
capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with academic
institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these
institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the
collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are
acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially
blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a
competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property
rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to
required third-party intellectual property rights, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition
could suffer.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual
property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property
or that of our licensors that we may acquire in the future. If we or a future licensing partner were to initiate legal proceedings against
a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our
product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity
and/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, 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 USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during
prosecution. Under the AIA, the validity of U. S. patents may also be challenged in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO. The outcome
following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties
or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patent or patent
applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to