OmniAb (OABI) Risk Factors

We have historically dedicated a substantial portion of our resources on the development of our platform and the technology that it incorporates. These investments may involve significant time, risks, and uncertainties, including the risk that the expenses associated with these investments may affect operating results and that such investments may not generate sufficient technological advantage relative to alternatives in the market which would, in turn, impact revenues to offset liabilities assumed and expenses associated with these new investments. The industry in which we operate changes rapidly as a result of technological and drug developments, which may render our solutions less desirable. We believe that we must continue to invest a significant amount of time and resources in our platform and technology to maintain and improve our competitive position. If we do not achieve the benefits anticipated from these investments, if the achievement of these benefits is delayed, or if our technology platform is not able to accelerate the process of antibody drug discovery as quickly as we anticipate, our revenue and operating results may be adversely affected.

We use our platform to offer antibody drug-discovery programs to partners who are engaged in drug research and development. These partners include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of all sizes. While we receive upfront payments generated through our receipt of service revenue and technology access fees, we expect that the vast majority of the economic value of the agreements we enter into with our partners is in the downstream payments that we may receive upon achievement of development milestones and royalties on sales of any approved products. As a result, our future growth is dependent on the ability of our partners to successfully develop and commercialize therapies based on antibodies discovered using our platform. Due to our reliance on our partners, the risks relating to product development, regulatory clearance, authorization or approval and commercialization apply to us derivatively through the activities of our partners. While we believe our platform is capable of identifying high quality antibodies, there can be no assurance that our partners will successfully develop, secure marketing approvals for and commercialize any therapeutic candidates based on the antibodies discovered using our platform. As a result, we may not realize the intended benefits of our partnerships. Neither we nor our partners are permitted to market any therapeutic candidate until we or they receive regulatory approval of a New Drug Application ("NDA") or Biologics License Application ("BLA") from the FDA in the United States or until we or they receive regulatory approval from foreign regulatory authorities in other countries. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a therapeutic candidate's clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the European Union (the "EU") recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation ("CTR") which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application ("CTA") to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state's decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the EU Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. It is currently unclear to what extent the United Kingdom ("UK") will seek to align its regulations with the EU. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from the EU Clinical Trials Directive (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January 17, 2022, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ("MHRA") launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials which aimed to streamline clinical trials approvals, enable innovation, enhance clinical trials transparency, enable greater risk proportionality, and promote patient and public involvement in clinical trials. The MHRA published its consultation outcome on March 21, 2023 in which it confirmed that it would update the existing legislation. The resulting legislative changes will ultimately determine the extent to which the UK regulations align with the CTR. Under the terms of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, provisions of the CTR which relate to the manufacture and import of investigational medicinal products and auxiliary medicinal products apply in Northern Ireland. A decision by the UK Government not to closely align its regulations with the new approach that has been adopted in the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries. Further, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission's proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may, however, have a significant impact on the biopharmaceutical industry in the long term. If we or our partners are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, development plans may be impacted. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a therapeutic candidate in the United States or abroad, our partners must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies, that such therapeutic candidates are safe and effective, or in the case of biologics in the U.S., safe, pure, and potent, for their intended uses. Results from nonclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we or our partners believe the nonclinical or clinical data for any therapeutic candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other comparable regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory bodies can delay, limit or deny approval of therapeutic candidates or could require our partners to conduct additional nonclinical or clinical testing or abandon a program for a number of reasons. Due to the uncertain, time-consuming and costly clinical development and regulatory approval process, our partners may not successfully develop any therapeutic candidates with the antibodies discovered using our platform, or our partners may choose to discontinue the development of these therapeutic candidates for a variety of reasons, including due to safety, risk versus benefit profile, exclusivity, competitive landscape, commercialization potential, production limitations or prioritization of their resources. It is possible that substantially all of these therapeutic candidates will never receive regulatory approval and, even if approved, such therapeutic candidates may never be successfully commercialized. In addition, even if these therapeutic candidates receive regulatory approval in the United States, our partners may never obtain approval or commercialize such therapeutic candidates outside of the United States, which would limit their full market potential and therefore our ability to realize their potential downstream value. Furthermore, approved therapeutic candidates may not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, the medical community and third-party payors, in which case revenue generated from their sales would be limited. Likewise, our partners have to make decisions about which clinical stage and preclinical therapeutic candidates to develop and advance, and our partners may not have the resources to invest in all of the therapeutic candidates that contain antibodies discovered using our platform, or clinical data and other development considerations may not support the advancement of one or more therapeutic candidates. Decision-making about which therapeutic candidates to prioritize involves inherent uncertainty, and our partners' development program decision-making and resource prioritization decisions, which are outside of our control, may adversely affect the potential value of those partnerships. Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if one more of our partners is involved in a business combination, the partner might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any drug candidate that utilizes an OmniAb-derived antibody. If one of our strategic partners terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new partners. We and our partners are also subject to industry-wide FDA and other regulatory risk. The number of BLAs and NDAs approved by the FDA varies significantly over time and if there were to be an extended reduction in the number of BLAs or NDAs approved by the FDA, the industry would contract and our business would be materially harmed. Our partners' failure to effectively advance, market and sell suitable therapeutic candidates with the antibodies that discovered using our platform could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, and cause the market price of our common stock to decline. In addition to the inherent uncertainty in drug development addresses above, our ability to forecast our future revenues may be limited.

We provide our antibody discovery solutions and capabilities in industries that are characterized by significant enhancements and evolving industry standards. As a result, our partners' needs are rapidly evolving. If we do not appropriately innovate and invest in new technologies, our platform may become less desirable in the markets we serve, and our partners could move to new technologies offered by our competitors, or engage in antibody discovery themselves. Without the timely introduction of new solutions and technological enhancements, our offerings will likely become less competitive over time, in which case our competitive position and operating results could suffer. Accordingly, we focus significant efforts and resources on the development and identification of new technologies and markets to further broaden and deepen our capabilities and expertise in antibody drug discovery and development. To the extent we fail to timely introduce new and innovative technologies or solutions, adequately predict our partners' needs or fail to obtain desired levels of market acceptance, our business may suffer and our operating results could be adversely affected.

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. This term can be reduced by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. Some of our patents have terminal disclaimers. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our platform or technology are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from others. If our platform or technologies require extended development and/or regulatory review, patents protecting our platform or technologies might expire before or shortly after we are able to successfully commercialize them. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing processes or technologies similar or identical to ours.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on issued United States and most foreign patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States at several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications in order to maintain such patents and patent applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we engage an outside service and rely on those services and our outside counsel to pay these fees. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies 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 and services 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 the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance 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. 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, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, if we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our technology and products, our competitors may be able to enter the market with similar or identical technology or products without infringing our patents and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and drug discovery industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, declaratory judgment litigation and adversarial proceedings before the USPTO, including interferences, derivation proceedings, ex parte reexaminations, post-grant review and inter partes review, as well as corresponding proceedings in foreign courts and foreign patent offices. We are, and may, in the future, become involved with litigation or actions at the USPTO or foreign patent offices with various third parties. We expect that the number of such claims may increase as our business, visibility and partnership base expands, and as the level of competition in our industry increases. Any infringement claim, regardless of its validity, could harm our business by, among other things, resulting in time-consuming and costly litigation, diverting management's time and attention from the development of the business, requiring the payment of monetary damages (including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses) or royalty payments, or result in potential or existing partners delaying entering into engagements with us pending resolution of the dispute. It may be necessary for us to pursue litigation or adversarial proceedings before the patent office in order to enforce our patent and proprietary rights or to determine the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others. The outcome of any such litigation might not be favorable to us, and even if we were to prevail, such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Given that the therapeutics discovery field is a highly competitive areas, there may be third-party intellectual property rights that others believe could relate to our technologies. The legal threshold for initiating litigation or contested proceedings is low, so that even lawsuits or proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated and require significant resources to defend. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceeding could require us to cease using the related technology or developing or commercializing our technology, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. 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 current or future products, technologies and services may infringe. We cannot be certain that we have identified or addressed all potentially significant third-party patents in advance of an infringement claim being made against us. In addition, similar to what other companies in our industry have experienced, we expect our competitors and others may have patents or may in the future obtain patents and claim that making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our technologies infringes these patents. Defense of infringement and other claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee resources from our business. Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive or other relief, which could block our ability to develop, commercialize and sell products or services and could result in the award of substantial damages against us, including treble damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses if we are found to have willfully infringed. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to pay damages and ongoing royalties and obtain one or more licenses from third parties, or be prohibited from selling certain products or services. We may not be able to obtain these licenses on acceptable or commercially reasonable terms, if at all, or these licenses may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. In addition, we could encounter delays in product or service introductions while we attempt to develop alternative products or services to avoid infringing third-party patents or proprietary rights. Defense of any lawsuit or failure to obtain any of these licenses could prevent us from commercializing products or services, and the prohibition of sale of any of our technologies could materially affect our business and our ability to gain market acceptance for our technology. 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. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation, there could 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 substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. In addition, our agreements with some of our partners, suppliers or other entities with whom we do business require us to defend or indemnify these parties to the extent they become involved in infringement claims, including the types of claims described above. We could also voluntarily agree to defend or indemnify third parties in instances where we are not obligated to do so if we determine it would be important to our business relationships. If we are required or agree to defend or indemnify third parties in connection with any infringement claims, we could incur significant costs and expenses that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation or administrative proceeding could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, partners or other third parties have an interest in our or our in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship of our or our licensors' ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors 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, intellectual property that is important to our systems, including our software, workflows, consumables, reagents, and transgenic animals. 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, and certain partners or partners may defer engaging with us until the particular dispute is resolved. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names that we own may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic, lapsed or determined to be infringing on or dilutive of other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights in these trademarks and trade names, which we need in order to build name recognition. In addition, third parties may in the future file for registration of trademarks similar or identical to our trademarks, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. If they succeed in registering or developing common law rights in such trademarks, and if we are not successful in challenging such rights, we may not be able to use these trademarks to develop brand recognition of our technologies or platform. 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. Further, we have and may in the future enter into agreements with owners of such third party trade names or trademarks to avoid potential trademark litigation which may limit our ability to use our trade names or trademarks in certain fields of business. We have not yet registered certain of our trademarks in all of our potential markets. If we apply to register these trademarks in other countries, and/or other trademarks in the United States and other countries, our applications may not be allowed for registration in a timely fashion or at all; and further, our registered trademarks may not be maintained or enforced. In addition, opposition or cancellation proceedings may in the future be filed against our trademark applications and registrations, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. In addition, third parties may file first for our trademarks in certain countries. If they succeed in registering such trademarks, and if we are not successful in challenging such third party rights, we may not be able to use these trademarks to market our technologies in those countries. If we do not secure registrations for our trademarks, we may encounter more difficulty in enforcing them against third parties than we otherwise would. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. And, over the long-term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks, then our marketing abilities may be materially and adversely impacted.

We have employed and expect to employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other companies. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, advisors and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that our employees, advisors, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers or other third parties, or to claims that we have improperly used or obtained such trade secrets. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights and face increased competition to our business. A loss of key research personnel work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize potential technologies and solutions, which could 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. In addition, 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. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, including parts of our technology platform, and to maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. In addition to pursuing patents on our technology, we take steps to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology by entering into agreements, including confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements, with our employees, consultants, academic institutions, corporate partners and, when needed, our advisers. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties, and we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Such agreements may not be enforceable or may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements, and we may not be able to prevent such unauthorized disclosure, which could adversely impact our ability to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in the market. If we are required to assert our rights against such party, it could result in significant cost and distraction. Monitoring unauthorized disclosure and detection of unauthorized disclosure is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to prevent such disclosure are, or will be, adequate. If we were to enforce a claim that a third party had illegally obtained and was using our trade secrets, it would be expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome would be unpredictable. In addition, some courts both within and outside the United States may be less willing, or unwilling, to protect trade secrets. Further, we may need to share our trade secrets and confidential know-how with current or future partners, collaborators, contractors and others located in countries at heightened risk of theft of trade secrets, including through direct intrusion by private parties or foreign actors, and those affiliated with or controlled by state actors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our confidential proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. If any of our confidential proprietary information were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, absent patent protection, 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. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently discovered by a competitor or other third party, it could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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. For example: - others may be able to make products that are similar to any therapeutic candidates generated by our platform that our partners may develop but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we or our partners have or license or may own or license in the future;- we, or our current or future partners, might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents and pending patent applications that we or our partners have or license or may have or license in the future;- we, or our current or future partners, might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our owned or licensed intellectual property rights;- it is possible that our pending patent applications or those that we may hold in the future will not lead to issued patents;- issued patents that we hold rights to may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;- 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 cannot ensure that any patents issued to us or our licensors will provide a basis for an exclusive market for our commercially viable technology or therapeutic candidates of our partners or will provide us or our partners with any competitive advantages;- we cannot ensure that our commercial activities or partners' therapeutic candidates will not infringe the patents of others;- we cannot ensure that we will be able to further commercialize our technology on a substantial scale, if approved, before the relevant patents that we hold or license expire;- we cannot ensure that any of our patents, or any of our pending patent applications, if issued, or those of our licensors, will include claims having a scope sufficient to protect our technology;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- the patents or intellectual property rights of others may harm our business; and - we may choose not to file a patent application in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent covering such intellectual property. Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our platform, technology, software, systems, workflows and processes 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 do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and even where such protection is nominally available, judicial and governmental enforcement of such intellectual property rights may be lacking. Whether filed in the United States or abroad, our patent applications may be challenged or may fail to result in issued patents. Further, we may encounter difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in some or 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 platform or technologies and may also sell their products or services to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These platforms and technologies may compete with ours. Our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. In addition, certain countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to other parties. Furthermore, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against other parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of any patents. In many foreign countries, patent applications and/or issued patents, or parts thereof, must be translated into the native language. If our patent applications or issued patents are translated incorrectly, they may not adequately cover our technologies; in some countries, it may not be possible to rectify an incorrect translation, which may result in patent protection that does not adequately cover our technologies in those countries. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many other countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us to stop the misappropriation or other violations of our intellectual property rights including infringement of our patents in such countries. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost 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, or that are initiated against us, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, changes in the law and legal decisions by courts in the United States and foreign countries may affect our ability to obtain adequate protection for our technologies and the enforcement of intellectual property. 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. In addition, geo-political actions in the United States and in foreign countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications or those of any current or future licensors and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents or those of any current or future licensors. For example, the United States and foreign government actions related to Russia's conflict in Ukraine may limit or prevent filing, prosecution, and maintenance of patent applications in Russia. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Russia. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of our patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Russia. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, a decree was adopted by the Russian government in March 2022, allowing Russian companies and individuals to exploit inventions owned by patentees from the United States without consent or compensation. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in Russia or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into Russia. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

In the future, we may identify third party intellectual property and technology we may need to acquire or license in order to engage in our business, including to develop or commercialize new technologies or services, and the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use this technology. However, such licenses may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. The licensing or acquisition of third party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater development or commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. Even if such licenses are available, we may be required to pay the licensor in return for the use of such licensor's technology, lump-sum payments, payments based on certain milestones such as sales volumes, or royalties based on sales of our platform. In addition, such licenses may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same intellectual property licensed to us. In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize technology covered by these license agreements. If these licenses are terminated, or if the underlying intellectual property fails to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, technologies identical to ours. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Additionally, termination of these license agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements, or restrictions on our ability to freely assign or sublicense our rights under such agreements when it is in the interest of our business to do so, may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology or impede, or delay or prohibit the further development or commercialization of one or more technologies that rely on such agreements. We cannot prevent third parties from also accessing those technologies. In addition, our licenses may place restrictions on our future business opportunities. In addition to the above risks, intellectual property rights that we license in the future may include sublicenses under intellectual property owned by third parties, in some cases through multiple tiers. The actions of our licensors may therefore affect our rights to use our sublicensed intellectual property, even if we are in compliance with all of the obligations under our license agreements. Should our licensors or any of the upstream licensors fail to comply with their obligations under the agreements pursuant to which they obtain the rights that are sublicensed to us, or should such agreements be terminated or amended, our or our partners' ability to further commercialize our technology or products generated using our technology may be materially harmed. Further, we may not have the right to control the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of all of our licensed and sublicensed intellectual property, and even when we do have such rights, we may require the cooperation of our licensors and upstream licensors, which may not be forthcoming. Our business could be adversely affected if we or our licensors are unable to prosecute, maintain and enforce our licensed and sublicensed intellectual property effectively. Our licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents and patent applications we in-license. If other third parties have ownership rights to patents or patent applications we in-license, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing technology and services. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected if we are unable to enter into necessary agreements on acceptable terms or at all, if any necessary licenses are subsequently terminated, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the licenses or fail to prevent infringement by third parties, or if the acquired or licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable. Moreover, we could encounter delays in the introduction of new technology or services while we attempt to develop alternatives. Defense of any lawsuit or failure to obtain any of these licenses on favorable terms could prevent us from commercializing our platform and technology and advancing partnerships, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are party to royalty-bearing license agreements that grant us rights to practice certain patent rights that are related to our systems, including our microcapillary assay technology, methods for selecting agents that bind to transmembrane receptors in a conformationally selective manner, and bovine antibody humanization technology. We may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research, development and commercialization activities. Some of our license agreements impose, and we expect that any future in-license agreements will impose, various development, diligence, commercialization and other obligations on us. We may enter into engagements in the future, with other licensors or other third parties under which we obtain certain intellectual property rights relating to our platform and technology. These engagements may take the form of an exclusive license or purchase of intellectual property rights or technology from third parties. Our rights to use the technology we license are subject to the continuation of and compliance with the terms of those agreements. In some cases, we may not control the prosecution, maintenance or filing of the patents to which we hold licenses, or the enforcement of those patents against third parties. Moreover, disputes may arise with respect to our licensing or other upstream agreements, including: - the scope of rights granted under the agreements and other interpretation-related issues;- the extent to which our systems and consumables, 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 under our license agreements with our partners;- our diligence obligations under the license agreements and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;- the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and - the priority of invention of patented technology. In spite of our efforts to comply with our obligations under our in-license agreements, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under our license agreements and might therefore, including in connection with any aforementioned disputes, terminate the relevant license agreement, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize technology covered by these license agreements. If any such in-license is terminated, or if the licensed patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties might have the freedom to market or develop technologies similar to ours. In addition, absent the rights granted to us under our license agreements, we may infringe the intellectual property rights that are the subject of those agreements, we may be subject to litigation by the licensor, and if such litigation by the licensor is successful we may be required to pay damages to our licensor, or we may be required to cease our development and commercialization activities that are deemed infringing, and in such event we may ultimately need to modify our activities or technologies to design around such infringement, which may be time- and resource-consuming, and which ultimately may not be successful. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, our rights to certain components of our technology platform, are licensed to us on a non-exclusive basis. The owners of these non-exclusively licensed technologies are therefore free to license them to third parties, including our competitors, on terms that may be superior to those offered to us, which could place us at a competitive disadvantage. 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 or otherwise violating the licensor's rights. In addition, certain of our agreements with third parties may provide that intellectual property arising under these agreements, such as data that could be valuable to our business, will be owned by the third party, in which case, we may not have adequate rights to use such data or have exclusivity with respect to the use of such data, which could result in third parties, including our competitors, being able to use such data to compete with us.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Some of our patents or patent applications (including licensed patents) may be challenged at a future point in time in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference. Any successful third party challenge to our patents in this or any other proceeding could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patents or amendment to our patents in such a way that any resulting protection may lead to increased competition to our business, which could harm our business. In addition, in patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. 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 certain aspects of our platform technologies. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future products. We may not be aware of all third party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our platform or technology. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until approximately 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not until such patent applications issue as patents. We or our licensors might not have been the first to make the inventions included in each of our pending patent applications and we or our licensors might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. There is also no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications or licensed patents and patent applications has been found, which could be used by a third party to challenge their validity, or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. To determine the priority of these inventions, we may have to participate in interference proceedings, derivation proceedings or other post-grant proceedings declared by the USPTO that could result in substantial cost to us. The outcome of such proceedings is uncertain. No assurance can be given that other patent applications will not have priority over our patent applications. In addition, changes to the patent laws of the United States allow for various post-grant opposition proceedings that have not been extensively tested, and their outcome is therefore uncertain. Furthermore, if third parties bring these proceedings against our patents, we could experience significant costs and management distraction.

Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States or other countries or regions may diminish the value of our intellectual property. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third party patents. We may not develop additional proprietary platforms, methods and technologies that are patentable. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. On or after March 16, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "America Invents Act"), the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO on or after March 16, 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our technology or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor's patents or patent applications. The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are now prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Additionally, on June 1, 2023, the European Union Patent Package (EU Patent Package) regulations were implemented with the goal of providing a single pan-European Unitary Patent and a new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) for litigation involving European patents. As a result, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the EU Patent Package, now by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC. During the first seven years of the UPC's existence, the UPC legislation allows a patent owner to opt its European patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC. We may decide to opt out our future European patents from the UPC, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the UPC. Moreover, if we do not meet all of the formalities and requirements for opt-out under the UPC, our future European patents could remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC will provide our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke our European patents, and allow for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunction. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates and, resultantly, on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations. In addition, the patent position of companies in the biotechnology field is particularly uncertain. Various courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have rendered decisions that affect the scope of patentability of certain inventions or discoveries relating to biotechnology. These decisions state, among other things, that a patent claim that recites an abstract idea, natural phenomenon or law of nature (for example, the relationship between particular genetic variants and cancer) are not themselves patentable. Precisely what constitutes a law of nature or abstract idea is uncertain, and it is possible that certain aspects of our technology could be considered natural laws. Accordingly, the evolving case law in the United States may adversely affect our and our licensors' ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents and may facilitate third party challenges to any owned or licensed patents.

Our platform utilizes animals to discover and produce antibodies. We cannot completely eliminate the risks of animals contracting disease, or a natural or man-made disaster that could cause death to valuable production animals, in our vivarium facilities, or those of the contract research organizations ("CROs") that maintain our mouse and rat colonies. We cannot make any assurance that we or our CROs will be able to contain or reverse any such instance of disease. Although we maintain backup colonies of our animals, disease or death on a broad scale could materially interrupt business operations as animals are a key part of our antibody discovery programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Further, genetic engineering and testing of animals has been the subject of controversy and adverse publicity. Animal rights groups and other organizations and individuals in the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions have attempted to stop animal testing activities by pressing for legislation and regulation in these areas and by disrupting these activities through protests and other means. To the extent the activities of these groups are successful, our research and development activities and the ability for us and our partners to use our technology platform could be interrupted or delayed, our costs could increase and our reputation could be harmed.

We use open source software in connection with our technology and computational engine of our platform. Companies that incorporate open source software into their technologies and services have, from time to time, faced claims challenging their use of open source software and compliance with open source license terms. As a result, we could be subject to lawsuits by parties claiming ownership of what we believe to be open source software or claiming noncompliance with open source licensing terms. Some open source software licenses require users who distribute software containing open source software to publicly disclose all or part of the source code to the licensee's software that incorporates, links or uses such open source software, and make available to third parties for no cost, any derivative works of the open source code created by the licensee, which could include the licensee's own valuable proprietary code. While we monitor our use of open source software and try to ensure that none is used in a manner that would require us to disclose our proprietary source code or that would otherwise breach the terms of an open source agreement, such use could inadvertently occur, or could be claimed to have occurred, in part because open source license terms are often ambiguous. There is little legal precedent in this area and any actual or claimed requirement to disclose our proprietary source code or pay damages for breach of contract could harm our business and could help third parties, including our competitors, develop technologies that are similar to or better than ours. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We do not own or operate vivarium facilities for our mouse and rat colonies and have no plans to expand our vivarium facilities beyond those that house our chickens. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party CROs to host our mice and rats and to conduct certain research services for us and our partners, such as animal breeding, genotyping and animal distribution. We have limited control over the performance by these third parties, including with respect to maintaining adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel, and to performing their services in compliance with applicable scientific and regulatory requirements. If these third parties are unable to continue maintaining our mice and rats in accordance with our specifications or on commercially reasonable terms, or otherwise perform in a substandard manner, the discovery activities for our partners may be delayed. If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third parties on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Switching or adding additional vivarium facilities involves additional cost and requires our management's time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new facility commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our partners' discovery timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with these third parties, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In recent periods, a limited number of partners accounted for a significant portion of our revenue. For the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, three of our partners accounted for 58% and 72% respectively, of our revenue, and 33 and 36 partners accounted for the remaining 42% and 28%, respectively, of our revenue. While moving forward we expect to diversify the number of partners and programs, in the near term these partners represent a large portion of potential revenue. Our license agreements are typically terminable by our partners without penalty with specified notice, which would terminate their access to our technology platform, although we would retain downstream economics on any OmniAb-derived antibody. As a result, if we fail to maintain our relationships with these partners or if these partners discontinue their programs, our future results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.