Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-05-23
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001193125-25-125499
Chunk: 254

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-05-23
Form: 424B3
Chunk 254
---
 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 requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness,
non-enablement or insufficient written description. 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. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of
Kineta’s is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that Kineta does not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court
will construe

156

the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that Kineta does not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that Kineta’s patent claims do not
cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of Kineta’s patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving
Kineta’s patents could limit Kineta’s ability to assert its patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude Kineta’s ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive
products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect Kineta’s competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if Kineta asserts trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks
Kineta has asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom Kineta has asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, Kineta could ultimately be forced to cease use of such
trademarks.

Even if Kineta establishes infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity
and instead award only monetary damages, which may or