The Company's success is heavily dependent upon its intangible property and technology. The Company relies upon copyrights, patents, trade secrets, unpatented proprietary know-how and continuing innovation to protect the intangible property, technology and information that is considered important to the development of the business. The Company relies on various methods to protect its proprietary rights, including confidentiality agreements with consultants, service providers and management that contain terms and conditions prohibiting unauthorized use and disclosure of confidential information. However, despite efforts to protect intangible property rights, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy or replicate intangible property, technology or processes. There can be no assurances that the steps taken by the Company to protect its intangible property, technology and information will be adequate to prevent misappropriation or independent third-party development of the Company's intangible property, technology or processes. It is likely that other companies can duplicate a production process similar to the Company's. Other companies may also be able to materially duplicate the Company's proprietary plant strains. To the extent that any of the above would occur, revenue could be negatively affected, and in the future, the Company may have to litigate to enforce its intangible property rights, which could result in substantial costs and divert management's attention and Company resources.
The Company's ability to successfully implement its business plan depends in part on its ability to obtain, maintain and build brand recognition using its trademarks, service marks, trade dress, domain names and other intellectual property rights, including the Company's names and logos. If the Company's efforts to protect its intellectual property are unsuccessful or inadequate, or if any third party misappropriates or infringes on its intellectual property, the value of its brands may be harmed, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and might prevent its brands from achieving or maintaining market acceptance.
The Company may be unable to obtain registrations for its intellectual property rights for various reasons, including refusal by regulatory authorities to register trademarks or other intellectual property protections, prior registrations of which it is not aware, or it may encounter claims from prior users of similar intellectual property in areas where it operates or intends to conduct operations. This could harm its image, brand or competitive position and cause the Company to incur significant penalties and costs.
The United States has enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. 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 actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system will likely be introduced by the end of 2023, which would significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications will soon 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 (UPC). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes.
Further, under certain circumstances, patent term covering our products or product candidates may be extended for time spent during the pendency of the patent application in the U.S. PTO (referred to as PTA, or Patent Term Adjustment). The laws and regulations underlying how the PTO calculates the PTA is subject to change and any such PTA could be challenged by a third-party. If we do not prevail under such a challenge, the PTA may be reduced or eliminated, resulting in a shorter patent term, which may negatively impact our ability to exclude competitors. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down a decision in the In re Cellect case that introduces particular uncertainty around PTA calculations. In that case, the court determined that patents with a term that exceeded the term of other patents in the same family-due to PTA extension-were invalid for obvious-type double patenting. If that decision is not overturned, or reversed by Congress, then any PTA in a patent that we have or obtain in the future could be vulnerable to similar invalidity challenges based on other earlier-expiring patents. While the In re Cellect case focused on such challenges from patents in the same family, the court did not address challenges to PTA from patents in other families that we or others may own, and this creates additional uncertainty with respect to PTA calculations. Because PTA added to the term of patents covering biological or pharmaceutical products, and methods of their use has particular value, our business may be adversely affected if the PTA is successfully challenged by a third party and our ability to exclude competitors is reduced or eliminated. In addition, for issued patents where we have PTA we may determine that it is prudent not to file additional applications in that family to preserve that PTA. Such a decision would negatively impact our ability to obtain patents with different scope from the same patent family even though we could be otherwise entitled to such patent protection. If we do not obtain patents on all the subject matter in our patent applications that we are entitled to, our ability to exclude competitors may be harmed.
In addition to changes in patents laws, geopolitical dynamics, including Russia's recent incursion into Ukraine, may also impact our ability to obtain and enforce patents in particular jurisdictions. If we are unable to obtain and enforce patents as needed in particular markets, our ability to exclude competitors in those markets may be reduced.
Companies in the retail and wholesale consumer packaged goods industries frequently own trademarks and trade secrets and often enter into litigation based on allegations of infringement or other violations of intangible property rights. The Company may be subject to intangible property rights claims in the future and its products may not be able to withstand any third-party claims or rights against their use. Any intangible property claims, with or without merit, could be time consuming, expensive to litigate or settle and could divert management resources and attention. An adverse determination also could prevent the Company from offering its products to others and may require that the Company procure substitute products or services for these members.
With respect to any intangible property rights claim, the Company may have to pay damages or stop using intangible property found to be in violation of a third party's rights. The Company may have to seek a license for the intangible property, which may not be available on reasonable terms and may significantly increase operating expenses. The technology also may not be available for license at all. As a result, the Company may also be required to pursue alternative options, which could require significant effort and expense. If the Company cannot license or obtain an alternative for the infringing aspects of its business, it may be forced to limit product offerings and may be unable to compete effectively. Any of these results could harm the Company's brand and prevent it from generating sufficient revenue or achieving profitability.