Company: GHRS
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form Type: 20-F/A
Source: 0001140361-25-027850
Chunk: 114

Company: GH Research PLC
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form: 20-F/A
Chunk 114
---
 or the AIA, enacted in the United States in 2012 and 2013, has resulted in significant changes to the U.S. patent system. Prior to the enactment of the AIA, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 16, 2013, under the AIA, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. Under this regime, a third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we made the invention before the third party. The AIA requires us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Among some of the other significant changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provide additional opportunities for third parties to challenge any pending patent application or issued patent in the USPTO. Such opportunities include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim in any of our future U.S. patents invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use USPTO procedures to invalidate patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of any of our future U.S. patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any patents that may issue from such patent applications. 60 Table of Contents Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases