Mereo Biopharma Group Plc (MREO) Risk Factors

Some of our employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at other biopharmaceutical or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the know-how, trade secrets, or other proprietary information of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including know-how, trade secrets, or other proprietary information, of any such employee's former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper or undermine our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates, which would severely harm our business. In addition, if such intellectual property rights were to be awarded to a third party, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or product candidates. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could hamper or undermine our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates, which would severely harm our business. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management from the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We consider proprietary trade secrets and confidential know-how and unpatented know-how to be important to our business. In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also may rely on trade secrets or confidential know-how to protect our technology, especially where patent protection is believed to be of limited value. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to maintain as confidential. To protect this type of information against disclosure or appropriation by competitors, our policy is to require our employees, consultants, contractors and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements with us. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets, and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we cannot know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. In addition, current or former employees, consultants, contractors, and advisers may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. We therefore cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Enforcing a claim that a third party obtained illegally and is using trade secrets or confidential know-how is expensive, time consuming, and unpredictable. The enforceability of confidentiality agreements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Furthermore, if a competitor lawfully obtained or independently developed any of our trade secrets, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. Failure to protect or maintain trade secrets and confidential know-how could adversely affect our business and our competitive position. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and may even apply for patent protection in respect of the same. If successful in obtaining such patent protection, our competitors could limit our use of our own trade secrets or confidential know-how.

We currently own registered trademarks. We may not be able to obtain trademark protection in territories that we consider of significant importance to us. In addition, any of our trademarks or trade names, whether registered or unregistered, may be challenged, opposed, infringed, cancelled, circumvented or declared generic, or determined to be infringing on other marks, as applicable. We may not be able to maintain and protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we will need to build name recognition by potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

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 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 or method of use as compensation for patent term lost during product development and 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. Similar patent term extensions may be available in other jurisdictions. For example, a supplementary protection certificate in Europe may be applied for approval to recover some of the time lost between the patent application filing date and the date of first marketing authorization. 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 product candidates sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable product candidates could be reduced, possibly materially.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries involve both technological complexity and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the America Invents Act (the "AIA"), which was passed in September 2011, resulted in significant changes to the U.S. patent system. An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the U.S. transitioned to a "first-to-file" system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes to the limitation where a patent may be challenged, thus providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. 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 proceedings 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. It is not clear what, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. However, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors' patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors' issued patents. Additionally, 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 decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In addition, the European patent system is relatively stringent in the type of amendments that are allowed during prosecution. Complying with these laws and regulations could limit our ability to obtain new patents in the future that may be important for our business.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and patent applications or ownership of our intellectual property. In particular, we may be subject to claims that former employees 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 or 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.

Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of a patent. In addition, the USPTO and other foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent failure to make payment of such fees or to comply with such provisions can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which such non-compliance will result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, and the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, and non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents within prescribed time limits. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates or if we or our licensors otherwise allow our patents or patent applications to be abandoned or lapse, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in any indication for which they are approved.

We currently own and have in-licensed rights to intellectual property, including patents, patent applications and know- how, relating to our product candidates, and our success will likely depend on maintaining these rights. Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to continue to acquire, in-license, maintain, or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and the rights to those formulations or methods of making those 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 that we identify as necessary for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies also are 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 may also be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on a timely basis, on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license to intellectual property of interest, we may not be able to secure exclusive rights, in which case others could use the same rights and compete with us. If we are unable to successfully obtain a license to third-party intellectual property rights necessary for the development of our product candidates or a development program on acceptable terms, we may have to abandon development of our product candidates or that development program.

We are party to agreements with licensors, including Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Ultragenyx under which we in-license certain intellectual property and were assigned, in the case of Novartis, or granted an option to acquire, in the case of AstraZeneca, certain patents and patent applications related to our business. In addition, we are party to agreements with OncXerna and Ultragenyx pursuant to which we have out-licensed certain intellectual property. We may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose and any future license agreements are likely to impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. Any uncured, material breach under these license agreements could result in the loss of our rights to practice such in-licensed intellectual property, and could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for any current or future product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that any of our, our licensors', or the previous owners' patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims, or the expiration of relevant patent applications or patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and patent application in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, in the U.S., patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and, upon request, certain patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S., remain confidential until those patent applications issue as patents. Patent applications in the U.S., EU, and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge, including any such patent applications that may claim priority from patent applications for patents that we have determined will expire before we commercialize our product candidates. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. Moreover, as we study our product candidates during development, we may learn new information regarding their structure, composition, properties, or functions that may render third-party patent applications or patents that we had not identified as being, or that we had not believed to be, relevant to our product candidates instead to be relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in a jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in the patent, and the patent's prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending patent application may be incorrect. We may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party's pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date or the possibility of an extension of patent term of any patent in the U.S, Europe, or elsewhere that we consider relevant also may be incorrect. Any of the foregoing circumstances, failures, or errors may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell our product candidates without alleged or actual infringement, misappropriation, or other violation of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Litigation relating to patents and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries is common, including patent infringement lawsuits and interferences, oppositions, and reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO"), and foreign patent offices. The various markets in which we plan to operate are subject to frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. In addition, many companies in intellectual property-dependent industries, including in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries, have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. Numerous U.S., European, 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. Some claimants may have substantially greater resources than we have and may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation to a greater degree and for longer periods of time than we could. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us. As the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties. We may be subject to third-party claims including infringement, interference or derivation proceedings, post-grant review and inter partes review before the USPTO, or similar adversarial proceedings or litigation in the U.S. and other jurisdictions. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third- party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, and the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the applicable product unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our compositions, formulations, or methods of treatment, prevention, or use, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. In addition, defending such claims would cause us to incur substantial expenses and could cause us to pay substantial damages, if we are found to be infringing a third party's patent rights. These damages potentially include increased damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to have infringed such rights willfully. As an example of the foregoing risks, we are aware of a third-party patent family which currently includes a patent granted by the European Patent Office ("EPO"), containing claims that appear to cover the use of etigilimab in the treatment of cancer. The patent owner could assert such patent against us, which could present the foregoing risks and impose limitations in our ability to develop, manufacture or sell etigilimab for such use in the EU, unless we obtain a license under such patent, such patent is determined to be invalid or unenforceable by the EPO or a national court in one or more relevant territories, or such patent is revoked or otherwise limited by the EPO. This patent is currently the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO, but there can be no assurance as to the outcome of such proceedings. Regarding our anti-sclerostin antibody product candidate, setrusumab, we are aware of litigation involving patents owned by a third-party, OssiFi-Mab LLC (OMab), relating to methods of using sclerostin antagonists in combination with antiresorptive drugs to increase bone growth, bone formation, and/or bone density. Specifically, in the U.S., OMab has asserted certain patents expiring in 2027 or 2028 against Amgen based on Amgen's commercialization of an anti-sclerostin antibody, Evenity, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture; Amgen denies infringement and asserts the OMab patents are invalid. In Europe, OMab was granted two patents with related subject matter; the first patent has been revoked while the second has been opposed by Amgen, UCB, and two anonymous parties. Any of our patents may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. We may be subject to a third party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and 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 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. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. There is a risk that one or more third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that one or more of these patents is valid, enforceable, and infringed, in which case the owners of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize a product candidate unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. However, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us or our third-party service providers, our development, manufacturing or sales activities relating to the product or product that is the subject of the suit may be delayed or terminated. As a result of patent infringement claims, or in order to avoid potential infringement claims, we may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party, which would be likely to include a requirement to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights. If we are unable to enter into a license on acceptable terms, we could be prevented from commercializing one or more of our product candidates, or forced to modify such product candidates, or to cease some aspect of our business operations, which could harm our business significantly. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights, which may result in significant cost and delay to us, or which redesign could be technically infeasible. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business. 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 or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S. and in Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity 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. Third parties might allege unenforceability of our patents because someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. There is a risk that in connection with such proceedings, a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent's claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention. Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving one or more of our patents could limit our ability to assert those patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competing product candidates. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop, or commercialize our current or future product candidates. Furthermore, our patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors and other third parties design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights. For example, a third party may develop a competitive product that provides benefits similar to our product candidates but that uses a technology that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. Our competitors may also seek approval to market generic versions of any approved products and in connection with seeking such approval may claim that our patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, 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. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates could be negatively affected. 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. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have an adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors view these announcements in a negative light, the price of our ADSs could be adversely affected.

The degree of 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 the same as or similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own or have exclusively licensed;- the patents of third parties may impair our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates;- the patents of third parties may be extended beyond the expected patent term and thus may impair our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates;- we or our licensors or any future strategic collaborators might not have been the first to conceive or reduce to practice the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent applications that we own or have exclusively licensed;- we or our licensors or any future strategic collaborators might not have been the first to file patent applications covering our inventions, our product candidates, or uses of the product candidates in the indications under our development or to be developed;- it is possible that the pending patent applications that we own or have exclusively licensed may not lead to issued patents;- issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantage, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;- issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide coverage for all aspects of our product candidates in all countries, such as for uses of our product candidates in the indications under our development or to be developed;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;- 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 product candidates for sale in our major commercial markets;- others performing manufacturing or testing for us using our product candidates or technologies could use the intellectual property of others without obtaining a proper license;- our or our licensors' inventions or technologies may be found to be not patentable; and - we may not develop additional technologies that are patentable.

Filing and prosecuting patent applications and maintaining and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our and our licensors' technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their competitor's own product candidates and, further, may export otherwise infringing product candidates to territories where we and our licensors have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as that in the U.S. or Europe. These product candidates may compete with our product candidates, and our and our licensors' patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. The examination of each national or regional patent application is an independent proceeding. As a result, patent applications in the same family may issue as patents in some jurisdictions, such as in the U.S., but may issue as patents with claims of different scope or may even be refused in other jurisdictions, such as in China, which has different requirements for patentability, including a stringent requirement for a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product or technology. The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws or rules and regulations in the U.S., U.K. and Europe, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing product candidates in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in other jurisdictions, whether or not successful, 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 as patents, 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. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets. If we or our licensors encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions. Some countries also have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patents. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired.