Company: ERAS
Filing Date: 2025-03-20
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000950170-25-042682
Chunk: 210

Company: Erasca, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-03-20
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 210
---
2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the America Invents Act) enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether 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 us or our licensors could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours or our licensors even if we or our licensors had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either: (i) file any patent application related to our therapeutic programs and other proprietary technologies we may develop, or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patent applications.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes to US patent law with respect to patent applications filed after March 16, 2013, that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These 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 United States 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 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 the USPTO procedures to invalidate our owned and in-licensed patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent US Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination