GeoVax Labs (GOVX) Risk Analysis

Our rights to significant parts of the technology we use in our products are licensed from third parties and are subject to termination if we do not fulfill our contractual obligations to our licensors. Termination of intellectual property rights under any of our license agreements could adversely impact our ability to produce or protect our products. Our obligations under our license agreements include requirements that we make milestone payments to our licensors upon the achievement of clinical development and regulatory approval milestones, royalties as we sell commercial products, and reimbursement of patent filing and maintenance expenses. Should we become bankrupt or otherwise unable to fulfill our contractual obligations, our licensors could terminate our rights to critical technology that we rely upon.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. The manufacture, use and sale of biologic products have been subject to substantial patent litigation in the biopharmaceutical industry. Such lawsuits often relate to the validity or infringement of patents or other proprietary rights of third parties. Pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities, research institutions or other third parties may have filed patent applications or may have been granted patents that cover aspects of our products or our licensors' products, product candidates or other technologies. Future or existing patents issued to third parties may contain patent claims that cover our products or their use or manufacture. In particular, the patent landscape in the Covid-19 vaccine space is crowded, and a large number of patent applications have been filed by numerous entities since January 2020, including for the use of certain SARS-CoV-2 antigens and antigenic combinations, including from Moderna, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sementis LTD., VaxBio, Inc., Oxford University, BioNTech, Ichan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Diosynvax LTD., The University of Alberta, University of Texas, and Tonix Pharmaceuticals. If a third party were to assert an infringement claim against us in the future with respect to our current products or with respect to products that we may develop or license, such litigation or interference proceedings could force us to: - stop or delay selling, manufacturing or using products that incorporate, or are made using the challenged intellectual property;- pay damages; or - enter into licensing or royalty agreements that may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Any litigation or interference proceedings, regardless of their outcome, may delay the regulatory approval process, be costly and require significant time and attention of our key management and technical personnel.

We will rely on trade secrets, unpatented proprietary know-how, continuing technological innovation and, in some cases, patent protection to preserve our competitive position. Our patents and licensed patent rights may be challenged, invalidated, infringed or circumvented, and the rights granted in those patents may not provide proprietary protection or competitive advantages to us. We and our licensors may not be able to develop patentable products with acceptable patent protection. Even if patent claims are allowed, the claims may not issue, or in the event of issuance, may not be sufficient to protect the technology owned by or licensed to us. If patents containing competitive or conflicting claims are issued to third parties, we may be prevented from commercializing the products covered by such patents or may be required to obtain or develop alternate technology. In addition, other parties may duplicate, design around or independently develop similar or alternative technologies. Some of our patent families and our in-licensed patent families are in an early stage of prosecution and cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents are issued from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the third-party technology. There can be no assurance that our patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technologies. There can be no assurance that the patents if issued will not be infringed, misappropriated, violated, designed around or invalidated by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. The degree of future protection for our intellectual property is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately obtain, maintain, protect, and enforce our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. These uncertainties and/or limitations in our ability to properly obtain, maintain, protect, and enforce the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing or using our intellectual property, and the parties from whom we may license intellectual property may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing or using the licensed intellectual property. We generally attempt to control and limit access to, and the distribution of, our product documentation and other proprietary information. Despite efforts to protect this proprietary information, unauthorized parties may obtain and use information that we may regard as proprietary. Other parties may independently develop similar know-how or may even obtain access to these technologies. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary information to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems and costs in protecting their proprietary information in these foreign countries. Furthermore, even if our or our licensors' patent applications are granted, the patent term may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time. Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest United States non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates have been or are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of product candidates, patents protecting our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing biotechnology patents is costly, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. In addition, Congress or other foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us. For example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that 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. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation can increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor's patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent United States Supreme Court and Federal Circuit rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. For example, recent Federal Circuit rulings such as Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs, 720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013), Enzo Life Scis., Inc. v. Roche Molecular Sys., 928 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023) have significantly heightened the standard for securing broad claims to pharmaceutical and biological products. In addition, recent Federal Circuit rulings such as In re Cellect, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023) have expanded the bases for invalidating a patent under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. In addition to heightened patentability requirements, recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit cases relating to biosimilar product approval under the BPCIA, have held that the "patent dance" provisions of the statute, which are intended to resolve any patent infringement issues before the approval of a biosimilar, are discretionary, and a biosimilar applicant can opt out by refusing to provide a copy of its application and manufacturing information to the biologic sponsor (see Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.,137 S. Ct. 1664 (2017). It may be that we do not learn of a biosimilar application until after FDA publishes its approval (see Immunex v. Samsung Bioepsis, 2:19-cv-117555-CCC-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2019). 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 Congress, the United States federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future.