Acumen Pharmaceuticals (ABOS) Risk Analysis

Third parties including competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents, patents that may issue to us in the future, or the patents of our licensors that are licensed to us. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may need to or choose to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, infringement, misappropriation, or other violation of our intellectual property, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States, or if we require, but do not receive, the consent or cooperation of our licensors to enforce such intellectual property. If we choose to go to court to stop another party from using the inventions claimed in our patents, that individual or company has the right to ask the court to rule that such patents are invalid, unenforceable, or should not be enforced against that third party for any number of reasons. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements for patentability, including lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description, indefiniteness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution, i.e., committed inequitable conduct. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO, even outside the context of litigation. Similar mechanisms for challenging the validity and enforceability of a patent exist in foreign patent offices and courts and may result in the revocation, cancellation, or amendment of any foreign patents we or our licensors hold now or in the future. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable, and prior art could render our patents or those of our licensors invalid. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on such product candidate. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions 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 could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to conduct our future clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our product candidate to market. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. Further, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Our ability to enforce our patent rights depends on our ability to establish standing in a court of competent jurisdiction. Whether a patent holder or licensee of a patent has standing can be uncertain and the considerations complex. However, if a licensor is required to be joined, and they are unwilling to do so, we may be unable to proceed with an infringement action. Our ability to enforce our patent rights depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products and services. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor's or potential competitor's product or service. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful.

Our success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including inter partes review, interference and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. The America Invents Act introduced new procedures including inter partes review and post grant review. The implementation of these procedures brings uncertainty to the possibility of challenges to our patents in the future and the outcome of such challenges. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidate. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our activities related to our product candidate may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. We cannot assure you that any of our current or future product candidates will not infringe existing or future patents. We may not be aware of patents that have already issued that a third party might assert are infringed by one of our current or future product candidates. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to our product candidate, or the use or manufacture of our product candidate. Because patent applications can take many years to issue and may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing, there may be currently pending third-party patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidate, and other proprietary technologies may infringe, or which such third parties claim are infringed by the use of our technologies. Parties making claims against us for infringement or misappropriation of their intellectual property rights may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidate. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial expenses and could be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business. If we collaborate with third parties in the development of technology in the future, our collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to litigation or potential liability. Further, collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability. In the future, we may agree to indemnify our commercial collaborators against certain intellectual property infringement claims brought by third parties. Responding to any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time-consuming and could: - result in costly litigation;- divert the time and attention of our technical personnel and management;- cause development delays;- prevent us from commercializing our product candidate until the asserted patent expires or is finally held invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed in a court of law;- require us to develop non-infringing technology, which may not be possible on a cost-effective basis;- require us to pay damages to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing, which may include treble damages if we are found to have been willfully infringing such intellectual property;- require us to pay the attorney's fees and costs of litigation to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be willfully infringing; and/or - require us to enter into royalty or license agreements, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do either. Proving invalidity or unenforceability is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity before federal courts requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management's time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, which may not be available, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity or enforceability of the patents in court. Patent litigation is costly and time-consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, if we do not obtain a license, develop or obtain non-infringing technology, fail to defend an infringement action successfully or have infringed patents declared invalid or unenforceable, we may incur substantial monetary damages, encounter significant delays in bringing our product candidate to market and be precluded from developing, manufacturing or selling our product candidate. We do not always conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications of and patents issued to third parties. We cannot be certain that any of our or our licensors' patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, analysis of the scope of relevant patent claims or determination of the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States, Europe and elsewhere that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidate in any jurisdiction, because: - some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued;- patent applications in the United States and elsewhere can be pending for many years before issuance, or unintentionally abandoned patents or applications can be revived;- pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our product candidate or their uses;- identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims;- patent applications in the United States are typically not published until 18 months after the priority date; and - publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries. Further, the scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent's prosecution history and can involve other factors such as expert opinion. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of claims in a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. Further, we may incorrectly determine that our technologies or product candidate are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party's pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or internationally that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products or product candidate. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours, and others may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidate or future products or impair our competitive position. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidate. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidate. Any such patent application may have priority over one of our patent applications, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to ours, we may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful if, unbeknownst to us, the other party had independently arrived at the same or similar invention prior to our own invention, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position with respect to such inventions. Other countries have similar laws that permit secrecy of patent applications and may be entitled to priority over our applications in such jurisdictions. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations. If a third party prevails in a patent infringement lawsuit against us, we may have to stop making and selling the infringing product, pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to be willfully infringing a third party's patents, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Further, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidate. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidate, which could harm our business significantly. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which may give our competitors access to the same intellectual property.

Presently we have intellectual property rights to our product candidate through a license from Merck. We also have an intellectual property license through a license with Northwestern University, or Northwestern, and, if this agreement remains in place, we could be required to pay low single digit royalties to Northwestern in the future. We entered into a single product license agreement with Lonza Sales AG on November 2, 2022, for non-exclusive access to Lonza's glutamine synthetase gene expression system known as the GS System, to use, develop and manufacture sabirnetug. Because our program may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidate may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license, on reasonable terms, proprietary rights related to any compositions, formulations, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as being necessary for our product candidate. Even if we are able to obtain a license to such proprietary rights, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. Where we obtain licenses from or collaborate with third parties, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain or enforce the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties, or such activities, if controlled by us, may require the input of such third parties. If any of our licensors or collaboration partners fail to prosecute, maintain and enforce such patents and patent applications in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by payment of all applicable fees for patents covering our product candidate, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidate may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have licensed from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensors and their counsel that took place prior to the date upon which we assumed control over patent prosecution. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors and collaborators to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, or in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such application. Moreover, we will likely have obligations under our current or future licenses, including making royalty and milestone payments, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license, or expiration of licensed patents or patent applications, could have a material adverse impact on our business. Our business would suffer if any such licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to enforce licensed patents against infringing third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. Further, if any licenses terminate, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties may gain the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical or similar to ours. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor's rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in products that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability. The licensing and acquisition of third-party proprietary rights is a competitive area, and other companies, which may be more established or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party proprietary rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidate. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. For example, we have collaborated and may in the future collaborate with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate an exclusive license to any of the institution's proprietary rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option to negotiate a license, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer, on an exclusive basis, their proprietary rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. In addition, disputes may arise under our existing or future license agreements with these institutions or with other counterparties which may, among other things, lead to the termination or renegotiation of these agreements, or otherwise require us to incur significant financial obligations. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us, either on reasonable terms, or at all. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment, or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercialize our products, and our business, financial condition, and prospects for growth, could suffer.

We may be subject to claims that former employees (including former employees of our licensors), collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patent rights, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidate or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we 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 our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Patents are of national or regional effect. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidate, and other proprietary technologies we develop in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights in the same manner and to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement of such patent protection is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries. For example, unlike other countries, China has a heightened requirement for patentability, and specifically requires a detailed description of medical uses of claimed drug. In India, unlike the United States, there is no link between regulatory approval for a drug and its patent status. In addition to India, certain countries in Europe and developing countries, including China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology or pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

As is the case with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly on obtaining and enforcing patents. Our patent rights may be affected by developments or uncertainty in U.S. or foreign patent statutes, patent case law, USPTO rules and regulations or the rules and regulations of foreign patent offices. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and are therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States may, at any time, enact changes to U.S. patent law and regulations, including by legislation, by regulatory rule-making, or by judicial precedent, that adversely affect the scope of patent protection available and weaken the rights of patent owners to obtain patents, enforce patent infringement and obtain injunctions and/or damages. For example, the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 has evolved significantly over the past several years as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court issued various opinions, and the USPTO modified its guidance for practitioners on multiple occasions. Other countries may likewise enact changes to their patent laws in ways that adversely diminish the scope of patent protection and weaken the rights of patent owners to obtain patents, enforce patent infringement and obtain injunctions and/or damages. Further, the United States and other governments may, at any time, enact changes to law and regulation that create new avenues for challenging the validity of issued patents. For example, the America Invents Act created new administrative post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings that allow third parties to challenge the validity of issued patents. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. 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 invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent process. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on any issued patents and/or applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ outside counsel to pay these fees due to foreign patent agencies. While an inadvertent lapse may sometimes be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology earlier than should otherwise have been the case, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Licensing of intellectual property rights is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property rights subject to a license agreement, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;- whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property rights of the licensor that are not subject to the license agreement;- our right to sublicense intellectual property rights to third parties under collaborative development relationships;- our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidate, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; and - the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners. If disputes over intellectual property rights that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms and/or to secure our rights to the licensed intellectual property, our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects may be adversely affected. We may enter into additional licenses in the future and, if we fail to comply with obligations under those agreements, we could suffer adverse consequences. We were a party to a collaboration agreement with Merck to research, discover and develop certain technology related to amyloid beta-derived diffusible ligands, or ADDLs. This collaboration was initiated in 2003 and was later terminated by Merck in 2011. During the collaboration, sabirnetug, an ADDL-binding antibody, was developed and intellectual property was filed by Merck. Under the surviving provisions of the collaboration agreement, Merck exclusively licensed Merck's interest in patent rights claiming ADDL antibodies, ADDL antigens and/or products to Acumen. If a dispute were to arise in the future as to our rights to the intellectual property under the agreement, our ability to commercialize sabirnetug may be jeopardized.

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidate, one or more patents issuing from U.S. patent applications that we file or license may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term, or PTE, of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar patent term restoration provisions to compensate for commercialization delay caused by regulatory review are also available in certain foreign jurisdictions, such as in Europe under Supplemental Protection Certificate, or SPC. If we encounter delays in our development efforts, including our future clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidate under patent protection would be reduced. Additionally, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced.

The term of any individual patent depends on applicable law in the country where the patent is granted. In the United States, provided all maintenance fees are timely paid, a patent generally has a term of 20 years from its application filing date or earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. Extensions may be available under certain circumstances, but the life of a patent and, correspondingly, the protection it affords is limited. When the terms of all patents covering our product candidate expire, our business may become subject to competition from competitive products, including biosimilar version of our products. Our product candidate is protected by patents covering the composition of matter and methods of using sabirnetug. The patents in this portfolio are expected to expire in 2031 without taking into account any possible extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. We cannot be certain that we will file and, if filed, obtain patent protection for our product candidate beyond our rights in the current sabirnetug patent portfolio. If we are unable to obtain additional patent protection on sabirnetug, our primary protection from biosimilar market entry will be limited to regulatory biologic exclusivity.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidate, and other proprietary technologies we may develop. If we are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidate, and any other proprietary technologies we may develop, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed. The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies is highly uncertain and involves complex legal, scientific and factual questions and has been the subject of frequent litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our product candidate and other proprietary technologies we may develop or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Further, no consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many jurisdictions outside of the United States. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be enforced in the patents that may be issued from the applications we may own or license from third parties. Further, if any patents we obtain or license are deemed invalid and unenforceable, our ability to commercialize or license our technology could be adversely affected. The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our actual or potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidate and other proprietary technologies and their uses by obtaining, defending and enforcing patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following: - the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process, the noncompliance with which can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, and partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction;- patent applications may not result in any patents being issued;- issued patents may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked, circumvented, found to be unenforceable, or may otherwise not provide any competitive advantage;- our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources than we do and many of whom have made significant investments in competing technologies, may seek or may have already obtained patents that will limit, interfere with, or eliminate our ability to make, use and sell our product candidate;- other parties may have designed around our claims or developed technologies that may be related or competitive to ours, may have filed or may file patent applications and may have received or may receive patents that overlap or conflict with our patent applications and/or patents, either by claiming the same composition of matter, methods or formulations or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position;- any successful opposition to any patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the practice of our technologies or the successful commercialization of any product candidate that we may develop;- because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidate and other proprietary technologies and their uses;- an interference proceeding can be initiated by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of any application with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013;- there may be significant pressure on the U.S. government and international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for disease treatments that prove successful, as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; and - countries other than the United States may have patent laws less favorable to patentees than those upheld by U.S. courts, allowing foreign competitors a better opportunity to create, develop, and market competing product candidate in those countries. The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute or maintain all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection for such output. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. Further, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology, competitors may be able to use our product candidate and other proprietary technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. For example: - others may be able to make compounds that are similar to our product candidate but that are not covered by the claims of our patents;- we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies;- any patents that we obtain may not provide us with any competitive advantages;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights or where patent protection is weak and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;- we cannot ensure that we will be able to successfully commercialize our product candidate on a substantial scale, if approved, before the relevant patents that we own or license expire; or - the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business. Others have filed, and in the future are likely to file, patent applications covering products and technologies that are similar, identical or competitive to ours or important to our business. We cannot be certain that any patent application owned by a third party will not have priority over patent applications filed or in-licensed by us, or that we or our licensors will not be involved in interference, opposition or invalidity proceedings before U.S. or non-U.S. patent offices. We cannot be certain that claims in an issued patent covering our product candidate will be considered patentable by the USPTO, courts in the United States, or by patent offices and courts in foreign countries. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property internationally. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. Patent applications that we file or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidate in the United States or in foreign countries. Even if such patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the ownership, validity, enforceability, or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. Any successful opposition to our patents could deprive us of exclusive rights necessary for the successful commercialization of our product candidate. Further, even if they are unchallenged, our patents may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidate or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents with respect to our product candidate is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, or threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidate. For U.S. patent applications in which claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our participation in an interference proceeding may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. For U.S. patent applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or America Invents Act, was signed into law. The America Invents Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO is developing regulations and procedures to govern the administration of the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act, and in particular, the "first to file" provisions, were enacted on March 16, 2013. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application and be diligent in filing patent applications, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. It remains unclear what impact the America Invents Act will have on the operation of our business. As such, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Some of our patents may have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding, and we may acquire or license in the future intellectual property rights that have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants. Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the U.S. government has certain rights in inventions developed with government funding. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as "march-in rights"). If the U.S. government exercised its march-in rights in our existing or future intellectual property rights that are generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants, we could be forced to license or sublicense intellectual property developed by us or that we license on terms unfavorable to us, and there can be no assurance that we would receive compensation from the U.S. government for the exercise of such rights. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property.

Our trademarks or trade names, once registered, may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights, or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. Moreover, any names we may propose to use with our product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, it may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties, and be acceptable to the FDA. Similar requirements exist in Europe. Further, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.