Madrigal Pharmaceuticals (MDGL) Risk Factors

While we have licensed from Roche issued patents directed at resmetirom in the United States and other countries, filing, prosecuting and defending patents on resmetirom in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing their inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and 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, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with resmetirom, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our 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 initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

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

Because we rely on third parties to research and develop and to manufacture our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Any of these could impair our competitive position. In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. For example, any academic institution that we may collaborate with in the future will usually expect to be granted rights to publish data arising out of such collaboration, provided that we are notified in advance and given the opportunity to delay publication for a limited time period in order for us to secure patent protection of intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration, in addition to the opportunity to remove confidential or trade secret information from any such publication. In the future we may also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third party collaborators. A competitor's discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

We currently have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patents that we own or co-own, to develop our product candidates. Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these proprietary rights. For example, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and the rights to these formulations may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These 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. We may collaborate with U.S. and foreign academic institutions and industry collaborators to accelerate our preclinical or clinical research. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution's rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

If we or any of our future development partners were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, or one of our future product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, 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, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or insufficient written description. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO, even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no 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 such product candidate. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market. 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 a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

The biotechnology industry has been characterized by frequent litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. Because patent applications are maintained in secrecy until the application is published, we may be unaware of third party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of resmetirom or our other product candidates. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently-pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, identification of third party patent rights that may be relevant to our technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time consuming and could likely: -   result in costly litigation;-   divert the time and attention of our technical personnel and management;-   cause development delays;-   prevent us from commercializing resmetirom for NASH or our other product candidates until the asserted patent expires or is held finally invalid or not infringed in a court of law;-   require us to develop non-infringing technology, which may not be possible on a cost-effective basis; or -   require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements. Although no third party has asserted a claim of patent infringement against us as of the filing date of this report, others may hold proprietary rights that could prevent resmetirom or our other product candidates from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to our product candidate or processes could subject us to potential liability for damages and require us to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market resmetirom or our other product candidates. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, we cannot be sure that we could redesign our product candidate or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing resmetirom or our other product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Moreover, we may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or in addition to interference proceedings, may become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or other post-grant proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third party patent rights. 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

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a "first inventor to file" system in which the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and a patent may become subject to post-grant proceedings including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

Our success depends on our ability to protect our intellectual property and our proprietary technologies. Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates, proprietary technologies, and their uses, as well as our ability to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. We can provide no assurance that our patent applications or those of our licensors will result in additional patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technologies, nor can we provide any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around or invalidated by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found 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 proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. This failure to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. While we have licensed rights to issued patents in the United States and other jurisdictions for resmetirom, we cannot be certain that the claims in issued patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged. We cannot be certain that the claims in owned and licensed patent applications covering our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and valid by courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in foreign jurisdictions. Even if we owned and licensed patent applications covering our product candidates, the patents may not be enforced against competitors. For example, a formulation patent may not be enforced against those making and marketing a product that has the same active pharmaceutical ingredient in a different formulation that is not claimed in the formulation patent. Method-of-use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method or for treatment of a particular indication. This type of patent may not be enforced against competitors making and marketing a product that has the same active pharmaceutical ingredient but is used for a method not claimed in the patent. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products "off-label." Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method-of-use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute. Our composition-of-matter patent licensed from Roche relating to resmetirom is scheduled to expire in the United States in 2026. Our co-owned patents and pending patent applications that cover our particular solid form, dosage, method of manufacturing, and uses of resmetirom to treat various indications are scheduled to expire in 2033. Our exclusively-owned pending patent applications that cover companion diagnostics, various solid forms of resmetirom, combination therapy, method of use, and method of manufacturing, if issued, are expected to expire between 2037 and 2042. Our exclusively-owned pending patent application that covers other THR beta analogs and uses thereof, if issued, is expected to expire in 2043. While patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates for each of these patents, there can be no assurances that we will receive any patent adjustments or patent term extensions. The patent application process and patent maintenance and enforcement are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our future development partners will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following: -   the USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process and after a patent has issued. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case;-   patent applications may not result in any patents being issued;-   patents may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked, circumvented, found to be unenforceable or otherwise may not provide any competitive advantage;-   we and our licensor(s) may not have been the first to make the inventions covered by pending patent applications or issued patents;-   we and our licensor(s) may not have been the first to file patent applications for our product candidates or the compositions developed, or for their uses;-   others may independently develop identical, similar or alternative products or compositions and uses thereof;-   we and our licensor(s)' disclosures in patent applications may not be sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for patentability;-   others may design around our owned and licensed patent claims to produce competitive products which fall outside of the scope of the patents;-   others may identify prior art or other bases which could invalidate our or our licensor(s)' patents;-   our competitors might conduct research and development activities in the United States and other countries that provide a safe harbor from patent infringement claims for certain research and development activities, as well as in countries where us and our licensor(s) do not have patent rights, and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in major commercial markets;-   there may be significant pressure on the United States government and international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for disease treatments that prove successful, as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; and -   countries other than the United States may have patent laws less favorable to patentees than those upheld by United States courts, allowing foreign competitors a better opportunity to create, develop and market competing product candidates. In addition, we rely on the protection of our trade secrets and proprietary know-how. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, we cannot provide any assurances that any of these parties would not breach the agreements to disclose any proprietary information, including trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Further, third parties may still obtain this information by other means, such as breaches of our physical or computer security systems. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Moreover, third parties may come upon this or similar information lawfully and independently. 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. Further, intellectual property rights have limitations and do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive position. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know-how, our business may be harmed.

We may enter into license agreements from time to time. Licensing of intellectual property is important to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including but not limited to: -   the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;-   the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;-   the sublicensing of patent and other rights;-   our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;-   the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by us and our licensors and collaborators; and -   the priority of invention of patented technology. If disputes over intellectual property and other rights that we have licensed or acquired from third parties prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.