Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form Type: S-4
Source: 0001193125-25-022803
Chunk: 262

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form: S-4
Chunk 262
---
 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**

<div align='center'>155</div>

**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 may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of Kineta’s confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of shares of Kineta Common Stock. Moreover, Kineta cannot assure you that it will