Company: WHWK
Filing Date: 2025-01-31
Form Type: DEFM14A
Source: 0001193125-25-018470
Chunk: 432

Company: Whitehawk Therapeutics, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-01-31
Form: DEFM14A
Chunk 432
---
, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the attention of our management and key
personnel from our business operations. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or in-license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or
any of our potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our products or product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent or the patent of our
licensors is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged
failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description, non-enablement, or obviousness-type double patenting. Grounds for an unenforceability
assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution of the patent application.

Third parties may also raise similar invalidity claims before the USPTO or patent offices abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms
include re-examination, PGR, IPR, 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 or our licensors’ patents in such a way that such patents no longer cover our technology or platform, product or any product candidates that we may develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and
unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we 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 at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology or platform, product or any product candidates that we may develop. Such a loss of patent
protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The outcome following legal
assertions of invalidity and/or unenforceability is unpredictable, and prior art could render our patents or our licensors’ patents invalid. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art