Company: HURA
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form Type: S-4
Source: 0001193125-25-022803
Chunk: 265

Company: TuHURA Biosciences, Inc./NV
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form: S-4
Chunk 265
---
 a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before Kineta files an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of Kineta’s even if Kineta had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require Kineta to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent Kineta from promptly filing patent applications on its inventions. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, Kineta cannot be certain that it or its licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to Kineta’s product candidates and other proprietary technologies Kineta may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in Kineta’s or its licensor’s patents or patent applications. Even where Kineta has a valid and enforceable patent, Kineta may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before Kineta’s filing date. Thus the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of Kineta’s patent applications and the enforcement or defense of Kineta’s issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on Kineta’s business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken Kineta’s ability to obtain new patents or to enforce Kineta’s existing patents and patents that Kineta might obtain in the future. For example, in the 2013 case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While Kineta does not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by it will be found invalid based on this decision, Kineta cannot predict how future decisions by