Company: IPHYF
Filing Date: 2025-04-30
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0001598599-25-000042
Chunk: 62

Company: Innate Pharma SA
Filing Date: 2025-04-30
Form: 20-F
Item: Item 3
Chunk 62
---
 also be subject to interference proceedings, re-examination proceedings, derivation proceedings, post-grant review or inter partes review in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), challenging Innate's or its licensors’ patent rights. Foreign patents may be subject also to opposition or comparable proceedings in the corresponding foreign patent office. For example, a third party filed an opposition in the European Patent Office (EPO) challenging one of the Company's European patents with claims directed to use of anti-NKG2A antibodies for treating cancer in an individual having progressive disease following treatment with an antibody that neutralizes the inhibitory activity of PD-1. The EPO issued a decision maintaining the Company's patent as granted, however the third party has appealed such decision. Third-party oppositions have also been filed challenging two of the Company's in-licensed European patents directed to CD39 technology. One of these oppositions has not yet resulted in a first-instance decision in the EPO, while the other opposition resulted in the revocation of the patents directed to CD39 technology, which revocation was appealed by Innate's licensor(s). All of the aforementioned oppositions are currently pending.

In addition, the Company may allege that third parties infringe Innate's or its licensors’ patents, and the defendant could counterclaim that such patents are invalid or unenforceable. 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 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. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, Innate cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which the Company or its licensing partners and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution.

Any such patent litigation or proceeding could result in the loss of Innate or its licensors’ patents, denial of Innate's or its licensors’ patent applications or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of such patents or patent applications. Accordingly, Innate's or its licensors’ rights under any issued patents may not provide Innate with sufficient protection against competitive product candidates or processes; Innate could become unable to manufacture