IGM Biosciences (IGMS) Risk Analysis

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Other entities may have or may obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our future approved products or impair our competitive position. Our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. We are aware of third-party patents and patent applications containing claims directed to most of our areas of product development, which patents and applications could potentially be construed to cover our product candidates and the use thereof to treat patients. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that we may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. There is no assurance that third-party patents or patent applications of which we are aware may not ultimately be found to limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import our future approved products or impair our competitive position, even though we do not believe they are relevant to our business. Patents that we may ultimately be found to infringe could be issued to third parties. Third parties may have or obtain valid and enforceable patents or proprietary rights that could block us from developing product candidates using our technology. These patents may not expire before we receive marketing authorization for our product candidates, and they could delay the commercial launch of one or more future products. If our products were to be found to infringe any such patents, and we were unable to invalidate those patents, or if licenses for them are not available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially harmed. Furthermore, even if a license is available, it may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Our failure to maintain a license to any technology that we require may also materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations, and we would be exposed to a threat of litigation. In the biotechnology industry, significant litigation and other proceedings regarding patents, patent applications, trademarks and other intellectual property rights have become commonplace both within and outside the United States including patent infringement lawsuits, oppositions, inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), or the applicable foreign patent counterpart. The types of situations in which we may become a party to such litigation or proceedings relating to third party intellectual property include: ?we or our licensors may initiate litigation or other proceedings, including post-grant proceedings such as oppositions, IPRs or PGRs, against third parties seeking to invalidate the patents held by those third parties, to obtain a judgment that our products or processes do not infringe those third parties' patents or to obtain a judgment that those parties' patents are invalid and/or unenforceable;?if our competitors file patent applications that claim technology also claimed by us or our licensors, we or our licensors may be required to participate in derivation or opposition proceedings to determine the priority of invention, which could jeopardize our patent rights and potentially provide a third-party with a dominant patent position;?if third parties initiate litigation claiming that our processes or products infringe their patent or other intellectual property rights, we will need to defend against such proceedings; and ?if a license to necessary technology is terminated, the licensor may initiate litigation claiming that our processes or products infringe or misappropriate their patent or other intellectual property rights and/or that we breached our obligations under the license agreement, and we would need to defend against such proceedings. These lawsuits would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our management and scientific personnel. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the cost of such litigation and proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater resources. There is a risk that a court would decide that we are infringing the third party's patents and would order us to stop the activities covered by the patents. In that event, we may not have a viable alternative to the technology protected by the patent and may need to halt work on the affected product candidate or cease commercialization of an approved product. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us to pay third party damages or some other monetary award, depending upon the jurisdiction. An adverse outcome in any litigation or other proceeding could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, potentially including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to have willfully infringed, and we may be required to cease using the technology that is at issue or to license the technology from third parties. We may not be able to obtain any required licenses on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business. If we are unable to obtain, maintain and enforce patent and trade secret protection for our product candidates and related technology, our business could be materially harmed. Our strategy depends on our ability to identify, seek, obtain, and maintain patent protection for our discoveries. Our patent portfolio is relatively small compared to many large and more established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have patent portfolios consisting of hundreds, and in some case even thousands, of granted patents. As our patent portfolio grows, we expect patent protection will continue to be an important part of our strategy. The patent protection process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain and enforce any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. 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. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we have licensed from third parties. Therefore, our owned, co-owned, or in-licensed patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. The patent applications that we own, or co-own, or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current and future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries or that effectively prevent third parties from commercializing competitive product candidates. Moreover, the patent position of biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or a foreign jurisdiction, and such prior art may affect the scope of any claims we ultimately get allowed or it may prevent our patent applications from issuing as patents. Further, the issuance of a patent does not ensure that it is valid or enforceable, nor is the issuance conclusive as to inventorship or the scope of any claims. Third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of our issued patents or claim that they should be inventors on such patents, and such patents may be narrowed, invalidated, circumvented, or deemed unenforceable, or such third parties may gain rights to such patents. We could also become involved in reexamination, inter-parties review, post-grant review, opposition or derivation proceedings, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. In addition, recent changes in law, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, have introduced changes in the law relevant to biotechnology patents, and future changes in law may further introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of patents owned by biotechnology companies. If our patents are narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, third parties may be able to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us without payment to us. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, and such prior art could potentially invalidate one or more of our patents or prevent a patent from issuing from one or more of our pending patent applications. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. Furthermore, even if our patents are unchallenged, they may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, prevent others from designing around our claims, or provide us with a competitive advantage. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the aggressive enforcement of patents, and the laws of foreign countries may not allow us to protect our inventions with patents to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in scientific literature lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in our patents or patent applications. As a result, we may not be able to obtain or maintain protection for certain inventions. Therefore, the issuance, validity, enforceability, scope, and commercial value of our patents in the United States and in foreign countries cannot be predicted with certainty and, as a result, any patents that we own, co-own, or license may not provide sufficient protection against competitors. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent protection from our pending patent applications, from those we may file in the future, or from those we may license from third parties. Moreover, even if we are able to obtain patent protection, such patent protection may be of insufficient scope to achieve our business objectives. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our own patented product and practicing our own patented technology. Moreover, some of our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications are or may in the future be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners' interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third-parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. We may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business prospects and financial conditions.

In the future, we may obtain funding, in part, from U.S. federal or state governments for research we conduct, and such funding may be used in the advancement of our existing technologies or creation of additional in-licensed patent rights and technology. Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the United States government has certain rights in inventions developed with government funding, including a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights, including so-called march-in rights, to any future patent rights funded in part by the U.S. federal government and any products or technology developed from such patent rights. These rights may permit the U.S. government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or to allow third parties to use our licensed technology, 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 can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve the practical application of government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the U.S. government of such rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We in-license certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important to our discovery platform and development of product candidates. In January 2021, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Medivir AB through which we received global, exclusive development and commercialization rights for birinapant, a clinical-stage SMAC mimetic. We also in-license, and may in the future in-license, certain antibody binding domains for our discovery and clinical development programs from third parties. Under these license agreements, we are able to research and initially develop discovery programs and are required to make certain annual payments. We also have the option to negotiate or enter into commercial license agreements with these third parties if we elect to continue development or commercialization of any product candidates incorporating the in-licensed antibodies. If we exercise our option to negotiate or enter into any commercial licenses with these third parties, we will likely be subject to various additional obligations, which may include obligations with respect to funding, development and commercialization activities, and payment obligations upon achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales. Our current license agreements impose, and any future license agreements we enter into are likely to impose, various development, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement or other obligations on us. If any of our licenses or future commercial licenses are terminated or breached, we may: ?lose our rights or options to research, develop or commercialize product candidates covered by the licensed technology;?not be able to secure patent or trade secret protection for product candidates covered by the licensed technology;?experience significant delays in the development or commercialization of product candidates covered by the licensed technology;?not be able to obtain other licenses that may allow us to continue to progress the applicable programs on acceptable terms, if at all; or ?incur liability for damages. Furthermore, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of patents and patent applications that we license from or to third parties. If our licensors and future licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce, and defend patents we may license, or lose rights to licensed patents or patent applications, our license rights may be reduced or eliminated. In such circumstances, our right to develop and commercialize any of our products or product candidates that is the subject of such licensed rights could be materially adversely affected. 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, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the licensor's intellectual property 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 infringement or misappropriation were found, those amounts could 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. In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from or to third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse impact on our business and ability to achieve profitability. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize any affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial conditions.

Any of our intellectual property rights could be challenged or invalidated despite measures we take to obtain patent and other intellectual property protection with respect to our product candidates and proprietary technology. For example, if we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States and in some other jurisdictions, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld material information from the USPTO, or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could challenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable. With respect to challenges to the validity of our patents, for example, there might be invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. 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 a product candidate. Even if a defendant does not prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, our patent claims may be construed in a manner that would limit our ability to enforce such claims against the defendant and others. The cost of defending such a challenge, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and any resulting loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on one or more of our product candidates and our business. Enforcing our intellectual property rights against third parties may also cause such third parties to file other counterclaims against us, which could be costly to defend, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and could require us to pay substantial damages, cease the sale of certain products or enter into a license agreement and pay royalties (which may not be possible on commercially reasonable terms or at all). Any efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights are also likely to be costly and may divert the efforts of our scientific and management personnel.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative: ?others may be able to make compounds that are similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own, co-own, or have licensed;?others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;?issued patents that we own, co-own, or have licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;?we may obtain patents for certain compounds many years before we obtain marketing approval for products containing such compounds, and because patents have a limited life, which may begin to run prior to the commercial sale of the related product, the commercial value of our patents may be limited;?our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;?we may fail to develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;?the laws of certain foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or we may fail to apply for or obtain adequate intellectual property protection in all the jurisdictions in which we operate; and ?the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business, for example by preventing us from marketing one or more of our product candidates for one or more indications. Any of the aforementioned threats to our competitive advantage could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Third parties may seek to market biosimilar versions of any approved products. Alternatively, third parties may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our product candidates. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement, which may lead to challenges to the validity or enforceability of our patents. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. Even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives. Even after they have issued, our patents and any patents that we license may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated, or circumvented. If our patents are invalidated or otherwise limited or will expire prior to the commercialization of our product candidates, other companies may be better able to develop products that compete with ours, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. The following are examples of litigation and other adversarial proceedings or disputes that we could become a party to involving our patents or patents licensed to us: ?we may initiate litigation or other proceedings against third parties to enforce our patent and trade secret rights;?third parties may initiate litigation or other proceedings seeking to invalidate patents owned by, co-owned by, or licensed to us or to obtain a declaratory judgment that their product or technology does not infringe our patents or patents co-owned by us, or licensed to us;?third parties may initiate opposition, IPR or PGR proceedings challenging the validity or scope of our patent rights, requiring us and/or licensors to participate in such proceedings to defend the validity and scope of our patents;?there may be a challenge or dispute regarding inventorship or ownership of patents or trade secrets currently identified as being owned by, co-owned, or licensed to us; or ?third parties may seek approval to market biosimilar versions of our future approved products prior to expiration of relevant patents owned by, co-owned by us, or licensed to us, under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, requiring us to defend our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. These lawsuits and proceedings would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our managerial and scientific personnel. Adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors can. There is a risk that a court or administrative body would decide that our patents are invalid or not infringed or trade secrets not misappropriated by a third party's activities, or that the scope of certain issued claims must be further limited. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our own patents or trade secrets could limit our ability to assert our patents or trade secrets against these or other competitors, affect our ability to receive royalties or other licensing consideration from our licensees, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making, using, and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. Furthermore, 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. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock. 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. For example: ?others may be able to develop a platform that is similar to, or better than, ours in a way that is not covered by the claims of our patents;?others may be able to make compounds that are similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of our patents;?we might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by patents or pending patent applications;?we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions;?any patents that we obtain may not provide us with any competitive advantages or may ultimately be found invalid or unenforceable; or ?we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable or that afford meaningful trade secret protection.

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 U.S. 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 are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned, co-owned, and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the 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 and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, 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 length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, and other proprietary information. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. Trade secrets and know-how can also in some instances be independently derived or reverse-engineered by a third party. We maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, in part by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, strategic partners and others upon the commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual's relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. Our agreements with employees and our personnel policies also provide that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and even when we obtain these agreements, parties with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. Any of the parties to these agreements may breach such agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. We may also become involved in inventorship disputes relating to inventions and patents developed by our employees or consultants under such agreements. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions. To the extent that an individual who is not obligated to assign rights in intellectual property to us is rightfully an inventor of intellectual property, we may need to obtain an assignment or a license to that intellectual property from that individual, or a third party or from that individual's assignee. Such assignment or license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. 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 in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. The disclosure of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such third party, or those to whom they communicate such technology or information, 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 if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know-how, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our business and competitive position could be harmed. Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our proprietary information.

We employ individuals who were previously or concurrently employed at research institutions and/or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers, or that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of these employees, even those related to one or more of our product candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, trade secrets or other proprietary information could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could limit our ability to commercialize, or prevent us from commercializing, our current or future technologies or product candidates, which could materially harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other governmental fees on patents or applications will be due to the USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside patent annuity service to pay these fees automatically when due, but we must notify the provider of any new patents or applications. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. However, 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. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, strategic partners or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. For example, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, the assignment agreements may be breached, or we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. 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. 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.

The prosecution of certain patent applications and the maintenance and enforcement of certain patents that relate to our product candidates are and may be in the future controlled by our licensors or licensees. Although we may, under such arrangements, have rights to consult with our strategic partners on actions taken as well as back-up rights of prosecution and enforcement, we have in the past and may in the future relinquish rights to prosecute and maintain patents and patent applications within our portfolio as well as the ability to assert such patents against infringers. For example, under our collaboration agreement with Sanofi, in specified circumstances, Sanofi controls the prosecution and enforcement of certain of the patents and patent applications licensed to it. If any current or future licensee or licensor with rights to prosecute, assert or defend patents related to our product candidates fails to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for patents covering any of our product candidates, or if patents covering any of our product candidates are asserted against infringers or defended against claims of invalidity or unenforceability in a manner which adversely affects such coverage, our ability to develop and commercialize any such product candidate may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.