Caribou Biosciences (CRBU) Risk Factors

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights, whether through patents or trade secrets, is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example: - others may be able to make, use, and sell cell therapy products that are similar to our product candidates without infringing our intellectual property rights;- others may independently develop similar or alternative genome-editing technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;- we may not develop additional patentable technologies;- others may misappropriate our trade secrets, or independently develop or acquire our trade secrets lawfully; and - our patents may have expired, whether or not PTE was granted. Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We have an exclusive license from UC and Vienna in all fields to the CVC IP, having as inventors Drs. Jennifer A. Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Martin Jinek, and Krzysztof Chylinski. We have entered into over 25 sublicenses, both exclusive and non-exclusive, to this CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property in combination with licenses to our own Cas9 intellectual property (and sometimes in combination with a sublicense to the Vilnius Cas9 patent family we licensed from Pioneer) in a variety of fields (e.g., human cell therapy, microbial applications, agriculture, livestock, industrial biotechnology, nutrition and health, research reagents and services, forestry, transgenic animal models, internal research, etc.). We are also required to share with UC/Vienna a percentage of sublicensing revenue we receive including cash and equity. These sublicense agreements are an important source of revenues for us while we are developing our own product candidates. Furthermore, we must reimburse UC/Vienna for the patent prosecution and maintenance costs associated with the CVC IP, which are substantial in light of all the disputes outlined below. The CVC IP that we have exclusively licensed from UC/Vienna is co-owned with Dr. Charpentier, and Dr. Charpentier has not granted us any rights to the CVC IP, either directly or indirectly. On December 15, 2016, we entered into the IMA with UC, Vienna, Dr. Charpentier, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (the exclusive licensee of Dr. Charpentier in the field of human therapeutics), ERS Genomics Ltd (the exclusive licensee of Dr. Charpentier in all fields outside human therapeutics), and Intellia, our exclusive licensee in a defined field of human therapeutics. Under the IMA, the co-owners provided reciprocal worldwide cross-consents to each of the other co-owners' existing licensees and sublicensees as well as future licensees and sublicensees, with no accounting to the other owners. The IMA includes a number of other commitments and obligations with respect to supporting and managing the CVC IP, including a cost-sharing agreement. In the United States, each co-owner has the freedom to license and exploit the technology. As a result, although our license from UC/Vienna is exclusive, we do not have any rights from Dr. Charpentier and thus our license to the CVC IP from UC/ Vienna is non-exclusive with respect to such co-owned rights. Furthermore, in the United States, each co-owner is required to be joined as a party to any claim or action we may wish to bring to enforce those patent rights. Although we have entered into the IMA, which provides for, among other things, notice of and coordination in the event of third-party infringement of the patent rights within the CVC IP, there can be no assurance that all parties will cooperate in any future infringement. In addition, the parties to the IMA may dispute certain provisions and the resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement could increase what we believe to be our financial obligations to UC/Vienna. The CVC IP is, and has been, the source of several disputes in the USPTO, the EPO, and other patent offices. At the time the CVC IP was first filed (May 25, 2012), the United States was under a first-to-invent patent system; thus, if two or more patent applications or one or more patents and one or more patent applications claimed the same invention, the USPTO would determine the inventorship. Specifically, the Broad Institute Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, in some instances, the President and Fellows of Harvard College (individually and collectively, "Broad"), owns a patent family (having an earliest filing date of December 12, 2012) that includes granted patents in the United States and Europe that claim certain aspects of CRISPR-Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic (i.e., plant and animal) cells, including human cells. In January 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the USPTO declared an interference (Interference No. 106,048, or the '048 interference) between one of the then-pending U.S. patent applications (now U.S. Patent No. 10,266,850) included in the CVC IP and 12 granted U.S. patents owned jointly by the Broad to determine which set of inventors invented first and, thus, was entitled to patents on the invention in the United States. The PTAB concluded at the end of the motions phase that the declared interference should be discontinued (and not progress to the priority phase) because the involved claim sets were considered patentably distinct from each other. Following appeal by the CVC group, in September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"), affirmed the PTAB's decision to terminate the interference proceeding without determining which inventors actually invented the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technology in eukaryotic cells. In June 2019, the PTAB declared another interference (Interference No. 106,115, or the '115 interference) between 14 pending U.S. patent applications in the CVC IP and 13 patents and a patent application co-owned by the Broad. The Broad patents include those that were the subject of the '048 interference. In February 2022, the PTAB issued its decision that the Broad inventors were the first to invent the use of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in eukaryotic cells; the owners of the CVC IP have appealed this decision to the CAFC. In addition to the Broad, ToolGen, Inc., MilliporeSigma (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA), and Harvard University, each filed patent applications claiming CRISPR-Cas9-related inventions after the CVC IP was first filed (October 23, 2012 in the case of ToolGen patent family; December 6, 2012 in the case of the MilliporeSigma patent family; and December 17, 2012 in the case of the Harvard University patent family) and have each alleged that they invented one or more of the inventions claimed in the CVC IP before the CVC inventors did. In December 2020, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106,127, or the '127 interference) between a ToolGen patent application that claims certain aspects of CRISPR-Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells, including human cells, and the same 14 pending U.S. patent applications in the CVC IP that are involved in the appeal of the '115 interference. The motions phase of this interference has concluded and the priority phase suspended until the CAFC appeal is decided. Additionally, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106,126) at the same time between the same ToolGen patent application and the Broad patents and patent application in the appeal of the '115 interference; the motions phase has concluded and this interference is also suspended until the CAFC appeal is decided. In June 2021, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106,132 or the ‘132 interference) between a MilliporeSigma patent application that claims methods for using CRISPR-Cas9 systems to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells, including human cells, and the same 14 pending U.S. applications in the CVC IP that are involved in the ‘115 and ‘127 interferences. This interference completed the motions phase and is also suspended until the CAFC appeal is decided. Also in June 2021, the PTAB declared an interference (Interference No. 106,133) between the same MilliporeSigma patent application and the Broad patents and patent applications in the ‘115 and ‘126 interferences; the motions phase has concluded and this interference is also suspended until the CAFC appeal is decided. We do not know the impact of a decision by the CAFC in the appeal of the ‘115 interference on these suspended interferences. Opposition and appeal proceedings in the EPO are ongoing against patents owned by the Broad, ToolGen, and MilliporeSigma as well as against the CVC IP. Additionally, invalidation trials or appeals thereof of the CVC IP are ongoing in China, India, and Japan. Such proceedings are often lengthy and can lead to the revocation of a patent in its entirety, the maintenance of the patent as granted, or, depending upon the jurisdiction, the maintenance of a patent in amended form. These CVC IP will expire in 2033 without PTA or PTE. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the CVC IP, certain third parties have negotiated royalty-stacking provisions in their sublicenses with us, whereby they can deduct from what they owe to us a certain percentage of royalties they pay to other parties with CRISPR-Cas9 patents (such as to the Broad). Furthermore, other third parties have adopted a "wait and see" approach and are not entering into license agreements with us or third parties until all of the uncertainty surrounding inventorship and priority among the groups with CRISPR-Cas9 patents is resolved. If patents in the CVC IP are invalidated, certain of our sublicensees may wish to renegotiate their license agreements with us or may terminate for convenience. If this happens prior to commercialization of our own product candidates, we could lose a source of revenues while still remaining responsible for reimbursing UC for costs of prosecuting and maintaining the remaining CVC IP.

Our industry is subject to rapid technological change and our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other jurisdictions with respect to our CRISPR chRDNA platform technologies and product candidates. We rely upon a combination of patents, owned by us or in-licensed from third parties, and trade secrets to protect our technology and product candidates. We seek to protect our intellectual property by filing patent applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions related to our genome-editing technologies and product candidates that are important to our business. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. If we are unable to obtain or maintain intellectual property protection with respect to our CRISPR chRDNA genome-editing platform technologies and product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects will be materially harmed. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields generally, and the genome-editing field in particular, involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. For example, the scope of patent protection that will be available to us in the United States is uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation may diminish our ability to protect our intellectual property; obtain, maintain, defend, and enforce our intellectual property rights; and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned or in-licensed patents. With respect to both owned and in-licensed intellectual property, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will grant as patents, whether the claims of any granted patents will provide sufficient protection, or whether, if these patents are challenged by our competitors, they will be found to be invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we or our licensors may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patents at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development in time to obtain patent protection before public disclosures are made. Although we may enter into non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements with parties who may have access to patentable aspects of our research and development, such as our employees, collaborators, CMOs, suppliers, consultants, CROs, clinical trial site investigators and personnel, and other third parties, any one of these parties may breach their confidentiality agreements and disclose innovations before we can file a patent application, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. The USPTO requires compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. The ultimate outcome of our pending patent applications is uncertain and the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is granted. Even as our patent applications, or those of our licensors, currently or in the future, grant as patents, they may not grant in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, dissuade companies from collaborating with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Periodic maintenance fees on granted patents are also required to be paid over the lifetime of the patent. Although an inadvertent lapse can, in many cases, be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in the loss of patent rights. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, nonpayment of fees, failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents, and the like. If we experience noncompliance events that cannot be corrected and we lose our patent rights, competitors could enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products, such as CAR-based cell therapy products, often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection as such patents provide protection without specifying any particular method of use or manufacture. Methods of use patents can protect particular applications of a product or the manufacturing of a product; however, such method claims do not prevent a competitor from using a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method of use or making a product that is identical to our product using a different method of manufacturing. Our allogeneic CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy product candidates do not contain our chRDNA genome-editing technology; rather, our chRDNA guides are used in the manufacturing of our CAR-T and CAR-NK products. It is virtually impossible to determine whether a competitor has infringed our chRDNA patents in making their products. Thus, even if we obtain patent protection on certain aspects of our technologies, such protection may not be enough to block our competitors from entering the market.

We license, or have taken assignment to, patents related to certain of our product candidates and genome-editing technologies from third parties. These licenses and assignments typically impose obligations on us, including diligence and payment obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, our licensors and assignors may have the right to terminate our agreements, in which case we would not be able to commercialize any product that is covered by the patent rights at issue. Additionally, we may be subject to litigation for breach of these agreements. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed, or taken assignment of, prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the product candidates or technologies covered by such patents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. In addition, intellectual property rights that we license in the future may include sublicenses under intellectual property owned by third parties, in some cases through multiple tiers. The actions of our licensors may therefore affect our rights to use our sublicensed intellectual property, even if we are in compliance with all of the obligations under our license agreements. Should our licensors or any of the upstream licensors fail to comply with their obligations under the agreements pursuant to which they obtain the rights that are sublicensed to us, or should those agreements be terminated or amended, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be materially harmed. Our CRISPR chRDNA genome-editing patent family was developed under a three-year research collaboration between us and Pioneer, now Corteva Agriscience. Initially, this patent family was owned by Pioneer under the terms of the Pioneer Agreement with Pioneer (then a DuPont company), and Pioneer granted us an exclusive license to the chRDNA patent family in the fields of human and animal therapeutics and research tools as well as a non-exclusive license in certain other fields outside the Pioneer Exclusive Field. Through an amendment to the Pioneer Agreement, dated December 18, 2020, Pioneer assigned the chRDNA patent family to us in exchange for an upfront payment and potential future milestones. As part of this amendment, Pioneer also granted a covenant not to sue for our licensees of our chRDNA technologies under certain other Pioneer intellectual property (to which we already have a license that, in this situation, we cannot sublicense to licensees of our chRDNA technologies in the field of human therapeutics) that might cover our chRDNA genome-editing technology, provided that we make the required payments. Thus, if we do not make such payments, our licensees could be sued by Pioneer, which could result in our licensees suing us for breach of contract. Additionally, under the Pioneer Agreement, we licensed certain Pioneer background CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property, particularly a patent family owned by Vilnius University and exclusively licensed to Pioneer, that we have sublicensed to several third parties as part of our CRISPR-Cas9 out-licensing program. Although the Vilnius patent family does not cover our chRDNA genome-editing technologies or product candidates, if we were to materially breach the Pioneer Agreement and not cure the breach, Pioneer could terminate the Pioneer Agreement, which would expose us to possible lawsuits from a number of our sublicensees to the Vilnius University patent family. For our CB-011 product candidate, an allogeneic anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy, we took assignment of an anti-BCMA scFv from ProMab under the ProMab Agreement. Although we own the patent family that covers this scFv and its methods of use, if we materially breach, and do not cure, the ProMab Agreement, ProMab could terminate the ProMab Agreement and we would be required to immediately cease any and all manufacture, sale, offer for sale, use, import, or export of products comprising the anti-BCMA scFv (provided that, if our product is approved for commercial sale, we may sell any remaining existing inventory of such products for a short period of time). If this were to happen prior to regulatory approval, we would not be able to continue the development of CB-011 and, if this were to happen after regulatory approval, we would lose all future revenues from CB-011. The scFv in our CB-012 product candidate, an allogeneic anti-CLL-1 CAR-T cell therapy, is exclusively licensed to us in this field by MSKCC. To maintain the license, we are required to pay annual license fees and to meet certain diligence milestones within specified periods of time. We may extend these periods by a certain number of months upon payment of additional fees. If we materially breach, and do not cure, the MSKCC Agreement, MSKCC may terminate the MSKCC Agreement, in which case we would not be able to continue the development of CB-012 or any other licensed CLL-1 product candidate. Thus, we are reliant upon the above licenses to and assignments of certain intellectual property from third parties that is important or necessary to the development of our genome-editing technologies and product candidates. In spite of our best efforts, our licensors or assignors might conclude that we have materially breached our license or assignment agreements, respectively, and might terminate these agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by the agreements. To the extent such third parties fail to meet their obligations under these agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of the agreements. If these agreements are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors could have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Disputes may arise with the third parties from whom we license or take assignment of our intellectual property rights from for a variety of reasons, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license or assignment agreement and other interpretation-related issues;- the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on, or derive from, intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the license or assignment agreement and is not covered by a covenant not to sue;- the sublicensing of rights and the obligations to our licensors associated with sublicensing;- our diligence obligations under license or assignment agreements and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; and - whether payments are due and when.

Our future programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of intellectual rights held by third parties, and the growth of our business could depend, at least in part, on our ability to acquire or in-license these intellectual property rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that case, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license other product candidates. We may need to cease development of a future product candidate covered by such third-party intellectual property rights. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies that may be more established or have greater resources than we do may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to develop product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources, and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. 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. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates or new genome-editing or other technologies that we may seek to acquire. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights, we may not be able to expand our product pipeline, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve confidential know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by patents. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect these trade secrets and other confidential information, in part, by entering into non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, collaborators, CMOs, CROs, clinical trial site personnel and investigators, consultants, and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and our agreements with consultants include invention assignment obligations. We seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, know-how, and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breaches. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our confidential information will be effective. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach agreements and disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts both within and outside the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect confidential information, including trade secrets. If a competitor lawfully obtains or independently develops any of our trade secrets, we will have no right to prevent that competitor from using such information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, or misappropriation of our intellectual property by third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our markets, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects. Additionally, it is possible that our genome-editing technology platform, our trade secrets, and our know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel from our company into academia or into other companies that may be our competitors. Furthermore, others may independently discover our trade secrets or other confidential information. For example, the FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we consider to be confidential, including trade secrets, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA's disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position will be materially and adversely harmed.

If our trademarks are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected. Our unregistered trademarks may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our unregistered trademarks. Over the long term, if we are unable to successfully register our trademarks and establish name recognition based on our trademarks, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our trademarks, domain names, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The fields of genome editing and CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapies are relatively new. No genome-edited products have been commercialized and there is ongoing patent litigation in the autologous CAR-T cell therapy space. Due to the widespread research and development that is taking place in these fields, including by us and our competitors, the intellectual property landscape is in flux and may remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. There may be significant litigation and administrative proceedings that could affect our genome-editing technologies and product candidates. Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell product candidates that we may develop or license without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign granted patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As industry, government, academia, and other biotechnology and pharmaceutical research expands and more patents are granted, the risk increases that our genome-editing technologies or product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot guarantee that our genome-editing technologies, current and future product candidates, or the use or manufacture of such product candidates does not currently or will not in the future infringe third-party patents. There may be third-party patents with claims to compositions, methods of manufacture, or methods of use or treatment that could cover our current or future product candidates. It is possible that we may fail to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. Furthermore, 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. Thus, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our genome-editing technologies or product candidates. Furthermore, patent rights are granted jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, and our freedom to practice certain genome-editing technologies, including our ability to research, develop, and commercialize our product candidates, may differ by country. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign granted patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields of CRISPR genome editing as well as the field of immuno-oncology, including those relating to CAR constructs and CAR-T and CAR-NK cell therapy compositions and methods of use. Our CB-010 product candidate uses Cas9 chRDNAs to insert the CD19-specific CAR into the T cell genome and for an additional edit. Numerous parties have intellectual property relating to RNA-guided Cas9 genome editing. See Risk Factors - "Our ability to continue to receive licensing revenue and to enter into new licensing arrangements related to the foundational CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property will be substantially impaired if such intellectual property is limited by administrative patent proceedings or other patent challenges," in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our CB-011 product candidate and our CB-012 product candidate both use Cas12a chRDNAs to insert the CAR into the T cell genome and to make additional edits. We are aware of certain third-party patents assigned to the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard University relating to CRISPR-Cas12a genome-editing systems (Cas12a was then referred to as Cpf1), which will expire in late 2035 assuming no PTE or PTA. Additionally, we are aware of third-party patents assigned to the U.S. government relating to anti-BCMA CARs as well as nucleic acids encoding such CARs, vectors comprising these nucleic acids, and host cells expressing such CARs, which will expire in 2033 assuming no PTE or PTA. We are also aware of several third-party patents relating to various CAR compositions, methods of use, and components, including specific co-stimulatory regions. There is ongoing patent litigation over various third-party CAR patents, and unexpired patents that survive that litigation could be asserted against us. Third parties may assert that our product candidates infringe their patents, including those listed above. Under U.S. patent laws, conducting clinical trials and seeking regulatory approval in the United States for therapeutic products are generally not considered an act of infringement, and similar exemptions are present in other countries. Nevertheless, third parties may allege that the act of filing our BLA or conducting clinical trials is outside of the safe harbor provision for activities reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA for regulatory approval, and third parties may, upon our regulatory filing, assert infringement claims based on existing patents or patents that may be granted prior to our BLA filing, regardless of the merit of such claims. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability, ownership, or priority. Patents in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is "clear and convincing," a heightened standard of proof. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome this presumption of validity, and there can be no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the patent. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable, and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop, including CB-010, CB-011, and CB-012, as well as any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover our genome-editing technology used in the manufacturing of our product candidates or any product candidate itself or its indication, the holders of those patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless and until we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or the patents expire, or are held to be not infringed, unpatentable, invalid, or unenforceable. We may not be able to obtain a license to the blocking patents, or the terms of the license may not be commercially viable. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial upfront, milestone, and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be blocked or delayed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. We could also be forced, including by court order, to cease manufacturing and commercializing any infringing product candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed the third-party patent. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of our management time and resources from our business.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, enforcing, and defending patents on our genome-editing technologies and product candidates in countries outside the United States is expensive. Prosecution of patent applications is often a longer process and patents may grant at a later date, and with a shorter term, than in the United States. The requirements for patentability differ in certain jurisdictions and countries. Additionally, the patent laws of some countries do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, unlike patent law in the United States, patent law in most European countries and many other jurisdictions precludes the patentability of methods of treatment and diagnosis of the human body. Other countries may impose substantial restrictions on the scope of claims, limiting patent protection to specifically disclosed embodiments. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in major markets outside the United States, or from selling or importing products into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may export otherwise infringing products to jurisdictions where we have patent protection, but enforcement 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 such competition. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in intellectual property laws in various jurisdictions worldwide. Many companies have encountered significant problems in enforcing and defending intellectual property rights in various jurisdictions globally. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights in various jurisdictions globally 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, could put related patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we file, 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 against competitors. Many jurisdictions have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties if they are not practicing the patented technology. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected. Patent protection must be maintained on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain jurisdictions or countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such jurisdictions or countries.

We may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, consultants, or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor, co-inventor, or owner of trade secrets. Although it is our policy to require our employees and consultants who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning that intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own or such party may breach the assignment agreement. We may have disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to obtain ownership or to defend against claims challenging inventorship. If we or our licensors fail in that litigation, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors are successful in defending against those claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and other employees, and the claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we develop, our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited PTE under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during clinical trials and the FDA regulatory review process. A PTE 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 a patent with claims covering the approved biologic, a method for its approved indication, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the clinical phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy the applicable requirements. Moreover, we may not receive PTE or we may receive less time than we requested. If we are unable to obtain PTE or if the term of any such PTE is less than we request, we will be unable to rely on our patent position to forestall the marketing of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries could increase the uncertainties around patent protection, costs, and the enforcement or defense of our patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. For example, the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. Such provisions affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act transformed the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, effective on March 16, 2013. For small companies, such as ours, this means that we must file our patent applications earlier in our development process rather than relying on proving priority of invention and it is now easier and less costly for third parties to attack our patents, all of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. There is uncertainty regarding the patentability of certain inventions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical areas. Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in particular situations. For example, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that a "naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," and invalidated Myriad Genetics' claims on isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. To the extent that our claims relate to naturally occurring antibodies or proteins, these may be deemed to be directed to natural products or to lack an inventive concept above and beyond an isolated natural product, and a court may decide the claims are invalid under the Myriad decision. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO, and the relevant law-making bodies, as well as courts and patent offices in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and those of our licensors. In Europe, a new unitary patent system took effect on June 1, 2023, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European patent applications will have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent, which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (the "UPC"). The UPC may present uncertainties for our ability to protect and enforce our patent rights against competitors in Europe. Although this new court was implemented to provide more certainty and efficiency to patent enforcement throughout Europe, it also provides our competitors with a new forum to use to centrally challenge our patents, rather than having to seek invalidity or non-infringement decisions on a country-by-country basis. It will be several years before the scope of patent rights that will be recognized by the UPC, and the strength of patent remedies that will be provided, is known.