Company: DNLI
Filing Date: 2025-08-11
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001714899-25-000170
Chunk: 158

Company: Denali Therapeutics Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-11
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 3
Chunk 158
---
 Services ("HHS") to negotiate prices directly with participating manufacturers for selected medicines covered by Medicare even if these medicines are protected by an existing patent. For small molecule medicines, the process begins seven years after initial approval by the FDA. While we do not believe that the IRA or its effects will impact our ability to obtain patents in the near future, we cannot be certain whether it will affect our patent strategy in the long run.

78

Issued patents covering our TV platform, product candidates and other technologies could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad.

If we or one of our licensors initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our TV platform, product candidates or other technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable or raise a defense to infringement. 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 subject matter eligibility for patenting, 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. Grounds for defenses to infringement include statutory exemptions to patent infringement for uses related to submitting information to regulatory authorities to seek certain regulatory approvals. Third parties may raise claims challenging the validity or enforceability of our owned or in-licensed patents before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our TV platform, product candidates or other technologies. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, a judge or jury could find that our patent claims laws of nature or are otherwise ineligible for patenting, and we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we or our licensing partners and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose