Company: NCEL
Filing Date: 2025-02-05
Form Type: F-3
Source: 0001213900-25-010223
Chunk: 101

Company: NewcelX Ltd.
Filing Date: 2025-02-05
Form: F-3
Chunk 101
---
imastem may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of its patents and other intellectual property.

Kadimastem may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in its patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, Kadimastem may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing its product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If Kadimastem fails in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, it may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on its business. Even if it is successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. In addition, Kadimastem may receive less revenue from future products if any of its employees successfully claim for compensation for their work in developing Kadimastem’s intellectual property, which in turn could impact Kadimastem’s future profitability.

<div align='center'>68</div>

Under applicable employment laws, Kadimastem may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete and therefore may be unable to prevent its competitors from benefiting from the expertise of some of its former employees. In addition, employees may be entitled to seek compensation for their inventions irrespective of their agreements with it.

Kadimastem generally enters into non-competition agreements with its employees and certain key consultants. These agreements prohibit employees and certain key consultants, if they cease working for Kadimastem, from competing directly with it or working for its competitors or clients for a limited period of time. Kadimastem may be unable to enforce these agreements under the laws of the jurisdictions in which Kadimastem employees work and it may be difficult for it to restrict its competitors from benefitting from the expertise its former employees or consultants developed while working for it. For example, Israeli courts have required employers seeking to enforce non-compete undertakings of a former employee to demonstrate that the competitive activities of the former employee will harm one of a limited number of material interests of the employer which have been recognized by the courts, such as the secrecy of a company’s confidential commercial information or the protection of its intellectual property. If Kadimastem cannot demonstrate that such interests will be harmed, it may be unable to prevent its competitors from benefiting from