Company: IMRX
Filing Date: 2025-11-12
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001790340-25-000135
Chunk: 512

Company: Immuneering Corp
Filing Date: 2025-11-12
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 8
Chunk 512
---
 result of these claims. The claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of such licensees and other parties regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of those parties or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our future licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our future in-licensed issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our, or our future licensors’, patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To prevent infringement or other violations, we and/or our future licensors may be required to file claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Further, our future licensors may need to file such claims, but elect not to file them. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our future licensors or potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation, 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 or written description, non-patentable subject matter (laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea), obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld material information from the USPTO or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could challenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor to the USPTO and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable. With respect to challenges to the validity of our patents, there might be invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution.

If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and