Company: ALAR
Filing Date: 2025-03-20
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0001213900-25-025287
Chunk: 23

Company: Alarum Technologies Ltd.
Filing Date: 2025-03-20
Form: 20-F
Item: Item 3
Chunk 23
---
 frequently changing, however, as are other international patent systems, and thus we may experience
uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any issued patents,
all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We
may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming, and unsuccessful.

Competitors
may infringe our intellectual property. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one
of our products, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In
patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/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, among others. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution
of the patent withheld relevant information from the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, or made a misleading statement,
during prosecution. The validity of U. S. patents may also be challenged in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO. The outcome following
legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable.

In
2014, the U. S. Supreme Court addressed the question of whether patents related to software are patent eligible subject matter. The Supreme
Court did not rule that patents related to software were per se invalid or that software-related inventions were unpatentable. The Supreme
Court outlined a test that the courts and the USPTO must apply in determining whether software-related inventions qualify as patent eligible
subject matter. The decision and other decisions following that decision have resulted in many software patents having been found invalid
as not claiming patent eligible subject matter. Our U. S. patents, like all U. S. patents, are presumed valid, but that does not mean
that our issued patents cannot be challenged on grounds of patent eligibility, or other grounds.

Derivation
proceedings initiated by third parties or brought by us may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions and/or their scope with
respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related
technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business