TScan Therapeutics (TCRX) Risk Factors

Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally, and we in particular, compete in a crowded competitive space characterized by rapidly evolving technologies and aggressive defense of intellectual property. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. We rely upon a combination of patent rights, confidentiality agreements, trade secret protection and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors or other third parties to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. We, or any partners, collaborators, licensees or licensors may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities to strengthen our patent position. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments. If we or any partners, collaborators, licensees or licensors fail to establish, maintain or protect such patent rights and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If any partners, collaborators, licensees or licensors are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form, preparation, prosecution, or enforcement of our patent applications, any patents that may issue from such patent applications may be invalid and/or unenforceable, and such applications may never result in valid, enforceable patents. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Currently, our patent applications are directed to our TCR-T therapy candidates and accompanying technologies. We seek or plan to seek patent protection for our proprietary platform and product candidates by filing and prosecuting patent applications in the U.S. and other countries as appropriate. Our patent portfolio also includes patent families exclusively licensed from BWH, which include issued and pending U.S. and foreign non-provisional patent applications. Any patents that may issue from any non-provisional patent applications claiming priority to these provisional patent applications would be expected to expire on various dates from 2038 through 2043, in each case without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. We anticipate additional patent applications will be filed both in the U.S. and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict: - whether and when any patents will issue;- the degree and range of protection that any patents that may issue will afford us against competitors;- whether any of our intellectual property will provide any competitive advantage;- whether any patents that may issue may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked, circumvented or found to be unenforceable;- whether or not others will obtain patents claiming inventions similar to those covered by our patent applications; or - whether we will need to initiate or defend litigation or administrative proceedings, which may be costly regardless of whether we win or lose. Additionally, we cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications covering the composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the USPTO or patent offices in foreign countries. Method-of-use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. If we obtain any of these types of patents, they would not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to one of our product candidates for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products "off-label." Although off-label prescriptions may induce or contribute to the infringement of method-of-use patents, the practice is common, and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the U.S. or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. Since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Various post-grant review proceedings, such as inter partes review and post-grant review, are available for any interested third party to challenge the patentability of claims in any patents issued to us or our licensors. While these post-grant review proceedings have been used less frequently to invalidate biotech patents, they have been successful regarding other technologies, and these relatively new procedures are still changing, and those changes might affect future results. No assurance can be given that, if challenged, any patents that we or our licensors may obtain would be declared by a court to be valid or enforceable or that, even if found valid and enforceable, a competitor's technology or product would be found by a court to infringe any such patent. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant and conclude that our activities do not infringe any valid claims of those patents or patent applications, but our conclusions may be erroneous or our competitors may obtain patents with issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, that block our efforts or that our product candidates or our activities infringe. Others may independently develop products that have the same effect as our product candidates without infringing any patents we may obtain or any of our other intellectual property rights, or they may design around the claims of any patents that we may obtain. Recent and future patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any patents we may obtain. In March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (America Invents Act) the U.S. moved from a "first to invent" to a "first-to-file" system. Under a "first-to-file" system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The America Invents Act included a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that have affected the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefined prior art and established a new post-grant review system. The effects of these changes are still unclear as the USPTO only recently developed new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law, including the "first-to-file" provisions, only became effective in March 2013. Moreover, the courts have yet to address many of these provisions. Overall, the America Invents Act and its implementation have increased the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and any enforcement or defense of any patents that we may obtain, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example: - others may be able to make or use compounds or cells that are similar to the biological compositions of our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of any patents that we may obtain;- the active biological ingredients in our current product candidates may eventually become commercially available in biosimilar drug products, and no patent protection may be available with regard to formulation or method of use;- we or our licensors, as the case may be, might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions;- there may be prior public disclosures that could invalidate any patents that we or our licensors may obtain;- the inventors of our owned or in-licensed patent applications may become involved with competitors, develop products or processes that design around any patents that we may obtain, or become adverse to us or patent applications on which they are named as inventors;- it is possible that our owned or in-licensed patent applications omit individual(s) that should be listed as inventor(s) or include individual(s) that should not be listed as inventor(s), which may cause any patents that may issue from these patent applications to be held invalid or unenforceable;- we have engaged and may continue to engage in scientific collaborations, and such collaborators may develop adjacent or competing products to ours that are outside the scope of any patents that we may obtain;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies for which we can obtain patent protection;- product candidates or diagnostic tests we develop may be covered by third parties' patents or other exclusive rights; or - the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.

In addition to the protection afforded by any patent rights we may obtain, we seek to rely on trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements, and license agreements to protect our proprietary know-how, information, technology and other proprietary information that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that we have not sought to protect through patent applications. For example, significant elements of our product candidates, including aspects of sample preparation, methods of manufacturing, cell culturing conditions, computational-biological algorithms, and related processes and software, are based on unpatented trade secrets that are not publicly disclosed. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party's relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. Despite these measures, 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. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the U.S. Courts outside the U.S. are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the U.S. and abroad. If we choose to go to court to stop a third party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. These lawsuits may consume our time and other resources even if we are successful. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized disclosure of our material intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition. For more information, see "Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property – We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world."

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement, misappropriation or other violation of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our product candidates and/or technologies infringe their intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates or identifying potential product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Because of the large number of patents and patent applications in our fields, there is a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods. If a third party claims that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to: - infringement, misappropriation and other violation of intellectual property claims which, regardless of merit, may be expensive and time-consuming to litigate and may divert our management's attention from our core business;- substantial damages for infringement, misappropriation or other violation which we may have to pay if a court decides that the product candidate or technology at issue infringes on, misappropriates or otherwise violates the third party's rights, and, if the court finds that the infringement was willful, we could be ordered to pay treble damages and the patent owner's attorneys' fees;- a court prohibiting us from developing, manufacturing, marketing or selling our product candidates, or from using our proprietary technologies, unless the third party licenses its product rights to us, which it is not required to do;- if a license is available from a third party, we may have to pay substantial royalties, upfront fees and other amounts, and/or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our product candidates or using our proprietary technologies; and - redesigning our product candidates or processes so they do not infringe third-party intellectual property rights, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time. Some of our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Generally, conducting preclinical and clinical trials and other development activities in the U.S. is not considered an act of infringement. If any of our product candidates is licensed by the FDA, a third party may then seek to enforce its patent by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. While we do not believe that any claims that could otherwise have a materially adverse effect on the commercialization of our product candidates, if licensed, are valid and enforceable, we may be incorrect in this belief, or we may not be able to prove it in litigation. In this regard, patents issued in the U.S. by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is "clear and convincing", a heightened standard of proof. As a result, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, or aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holder of any such patent may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patent, or until such patent expires or it is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In any case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. In addition, 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 material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any of the foregoing events could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Any of the foregoing events could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Because additional product candidates 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 acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, while we have certain patent rights directed to certain TCR constructs, we may not be able to obtain intellectual property to broad T cell or TCR constructs. Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and rights to these formulations may be held by others. Similarly, efficient production or delivery of our product candidates may also require specific compositions or methods, and the rights to these may be owned by third parties. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any formulations, compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. Moreover, the specific antibodies that will be used with our product candidates may be covered by the intellectual property rights of others. Additionally, we may collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution's rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business and financial condition could suffer. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies that may be more established or have greater resources than we do may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

In the future, competitors or other third parties may infringe any patents that we or our licensors may obtain. To counter any such future infringement or unauthorized use, we may eventually be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents or that our licensors' patents are invalid or unenforceable. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more patents that we may obtain in the future is not valid or is unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent's claims narrowly or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that such patents, if any, do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of such patents, if any, at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Asserting any patent rights we may obtain in the future, and defending challenges to our rights, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business and we may find it impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties. Post-grant, interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the validity or priority of inventions with respect to our or our licensors' patent applications or any patents that may issue therefrom. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of any patent rights we may have. 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 or proceeding. In addition, 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 material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any of the foregoing events could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Some of our patent applications may be allowed in the future. We cannot be certain that an allowed patent application will become an issued patent. There may be events that cause withdrawal of the allowance of a patent application. For example, after a patent application has been allowed, but prior to being issued, material that could be relevant to patentability may be identified. In such circumstances, the applicant may pull the application from allowance in order for the USPTO or foreign patent agency to review the application in view of the new material. In that circumstance, the USPTO or the other agency may not re-allow an application in view of the new material. Further, periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies at several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or patent applications. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies also require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary and other similar provisions during the patent application process and following the issuance of a patent. We also may be dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. While an inadvertent lapse 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 noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, 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, our competitors and other third parties might be able to enter the market without infringing our or our licensors' patents and patent applications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Our owned or in-licensed patents, and any of our owned or in-licensed patent applications that may issue in the future, may be challenged at the USPTO or foreign patent offices in re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (such as opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of or amendment to such patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or technologies. If we or one of our licensing partners initiates legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent that we may obtain in the future covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (such as opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to any patents we may obtain in the future in such a way that they would no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any patent protection we may eventually obtain on our product candidates and technologies. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and product candidates.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications. Changes in either the patent laws or in their interpretation in any jurisdiction that we seek patent protection may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights and, more generally, may affect the value of our intellectual property and proprietary rights. The U.S. continues to adapt to wide-ranging patent reform legislation that became effective starting in 2012. Moreover, various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rendered decisions that have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened 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 would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the case Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. We cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our pending patent applications. Similarly, any adverse changes in the laws and regulations governing patents in other jurisdictions could have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain and effectively enforce our patent rights and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the U.S., and 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 U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors or other third parties may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may also export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as in the U.S. These products may compete with our product candidates and our patent rights 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. Most of our patent portfolio is at a very early stage. We will need to decide whether, and in which jurisdictions, to pursue protection for the various inventions in our portfolio prior to applicable filing deadlines. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products and biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property rights, including any infringement of any patents we may obtain in the future in such countries, or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce any patent rights we may obtain in the future in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, any patents we obtain in the future at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly 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 establish 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.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. It is our policy to enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and contractors. These agreements generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, such agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. For instance, 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 current or former employees, consultants, and contractors, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Moreover, there may be circumstances where we are unable to negotiate for such ownership rights. Disputes regarding ownership or inventorship of intellectual property can also arise in other contexts, such as collaborations and sponsored research. If we are subject to a dispute challenging our rights in or to inventions or other intellectual property, such a dispute could be expensive and time consuming. If we are unsuccessful in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, unless we are able to obtain a license, which might not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, we could lose valuable rights in intellectual property, such as the exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that we regard as our own or that is important to our business. 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 customers, licensors 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.

We have received, and will continue to receive, confidential and proprietary information from third parties. In addition, we have employed and expect to continue to employ individuals who were previously employed at university or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, in some cases until recently. 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 we, our employees, advisors, consultants or independent contractors have deliberately, inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information of these former employers, competitors or other third parties, or to claims that we have improperly used or obtained such trade secrets. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees' former employers or our consultants' or contractors' current or former clients or customers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and employees. If we are not successful in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we could lose access or exclusive access to valuable intellectual property rights and face increased competition to our business. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Many of our employees were previously employed at other pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, in some cases until recently. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information belonging to these former employers or competitors. In addition, we have been and may in the future be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and could be a distraction to management. If our defense to those claims fails, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize product candidates or potential products, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Depending upon the timing, duration, conditions and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any of our current or future product candidates that we may receive, one or more U.S. patents that we may obtain in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments) and one or more of our foreign patent rights may be eligible for patent term extension under similar legislation, for example, in the EU. In the U.S., the Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for effective 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, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, there are no assurances that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority or national patent office will grant such extensions, in whole or in part. For example, we may not be granted an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to the expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise fail to satisfy other applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product candidate will be shortened, and our competitors or other third parties may obtain approval to market competing products following expiration of any patents that we may obtain in the future, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

We rely on both registered and common law protection for our trademarks for use in connection with our product candidates and services in various countries. These trademarks may not afford adequate protection. Our trademark applications may be provisionally or ultimately refused by the USPTO or the trademark agencies of other countries, or such applications may be challenged by others. We also may not have the financial resources to enforce the rights under these trademarks, which may enable others to use the trademarks and dilute their value. Our trademarks may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing the trademarks of others. In such a case, we may not be able to protect or derive any value from such trademarks or may be required to cease using a conflicting mark entirely. The value of our trademarks may also be diminished by our own actions, such as failing to impose appropriate quality control when licensing our trademarks. Any of the foregoing could impair the value of, or ability to use, our trademarks, reduce our ability to compete effectively, and have an adverse effect on our business.

Certain of our in-licensed patent rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government has march-in rights with regards to government-funded technology. For example, the U.S. government has certain rights, including march-in rights, to patent rights and technology funded by the U.S. government and licensed to us from BWH. When new technologies are developed with government funding, in order to secure ownership of such patent rights, the recipient of such funding is required to comply with certain government regulations, including timely disclosing the inventions claimed in such patent rights to the U.S. government and timely electing title to such inventions. Any failure to timely elect title to such inventions may provide the U.S. government with the right to, at any time, take title to such inventions. Additionally, the U.S. government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. If the government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. These rights may permit the U.S. government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The U.S. government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the U.S. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our success will depend in large part on our ability and the ability of our licensors and collaborators to obtain and maintain patent protection and other intellectual property and proprietary rights in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our technology and our product candidates, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment and development that are important to our business, as well as our ability to operate our business without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of others. Given the early stage of development of our product candidates, our patent portfolio is similarly at an early stage. In particular, we do not exclusively license any issued patents and many of the patent applications we own are provisional applications. If we do not obtain meaningful patent coverage for our product candidates, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which would likely harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. To establish our proprietary position, we have filed provisional patent applications and corresponding Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), national, and regional applications related to our novel product candidates that are important to our business, and we have exclusively licensed a patent family from the Brigham and Women's Hospital, Inc. (BWH); we may in the future also license or purchase issued patents or pending patent applications filed by others. U.S. provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of filing of one or more of our related provisional patent applications. With regard to such U.S. provisional patent applications, if we do not timely file any non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. While we intend to timely file non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether any such patent applications will result in the issuance of patents that provide us with any competitive advantage. If we are unable to secure or maintain patent protection with respect to our antibody technology and any proprietary products and technology we develop, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed. If the scope of the patent protection we or our existing and potential licensors obtain, if any, is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to prevent others from developing and commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours. The degree of patent protection we require to successfully compete in the marketplace may be unavailable or severely limited and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. We cannot provide any assurances that any of our owned or exclusively licensed pending patent applications that mature into issued patents will include claims with a scope sufficient to protect our current and future product candidates or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. In addition, to the extent that we license intellectual property now or in the future, we cannot provide any assurances that those licenses will remain in force. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, any patents that we may obtain in the future protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after commercialization of such candidates, if any. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours. Even if they are unchallenged, our pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors or other third parties from designing around our patent claims to circumvent any patents that may issue by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive therapy that provides benefits similar to one or more of our product candidates but that uses a formulation and/or a device that falls outside the scope of our patent claims. If any patent protection that we may obtain in the future from the 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, which would harm our business. Similar risks apply to patents or patent applications that we have in-licensed or may in the future in-license. Patent positions of life sciences companies can be uncertain and involve complex factual and legal questions and are subject of much litigation. No consistent policy governing the scope of claims allowable in the field of antibodies has emerged in the U.S. The scope of patent protection in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. is also uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in their interpretation in any jurisdiction that we seek patent protection may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, protect and enforce our intellectual property and other proprietary rights; and, more generally, may affect the value of our intellectual property, including the narrowing of the scope of any patents that we may obtain in the future and any that we may license. The patent prosecution process is complex, expensive, time-consuming and inconsistent across jurisdictions. We may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, or license all necessary or desirable patent rights at a commercially reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we do not intend to pursue, and may not obtain, patent protection in all potentially relevant markets. It is possible that we will fail to identify important patentable aspects of our research and development efforts in time to obtain appropriate or any patent protection or fail to file patent applications covering inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before a competitor or another third party files a patent application covering, or publishes information disclosing, a similar, independently-developed invention. Such competitor's or other third party's patent application may pose obstacles to our ability to obtain patent protection or limit the scope of the patent protection we may obtain. While we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development efforts, including for example, our employees, corporate collaborators, external academic scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby endangering our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific and scholarly literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or in-licensed patent rights and patent applications or were the first to file for patent protection on the inventions claimed in our pending patent applications. The issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors' patent rights are highly uncertain. Our and our licensors' pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively exclude others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates. Further, the scope of the invention claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and this scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even where patent applications we currently own or that we license now or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with adequate protection to prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with a competitive advantage. Any patents that eventually issue may be challenged, narrowed or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patent rights. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to evade or circumvent our patent rights by developing new alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. The issuance or grant of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and patents we may obtain in the future may be challenged, invalidated, narrowed or held to be enforceable, including in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad, or circumvented. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. There also may be prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, but which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. We may become subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art or opposition, derivation, revocation, re-examination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceeding and other similar proceedings challenging any patent rights we may obtain in the future or the patent rights of others, including based on priority of invention or other features of patentability, in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or other foreign patent office. An unfavorable determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, any patent rights we may obtain in the future, allow third parties to use or commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us (as they can now), or extinguish our ability to manufacture or commercialize product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, 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 material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, any patents we may obtain in the future protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after commercialization of such candidates, if any. As a result, our intellectual property may never provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, any patents or patent applications that we may own or in-license in the future may be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners' interest in any such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, thereby enabling our competitors to market competing products and technology. In addition, we or our licensors may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of any patents that we may own or in-license in the future in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us or our licensors. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

We believe that an important factor in our competitive position is our screening technology platform to identify future product candidates and therapeutic targets. Our screening platform is based in part on technology processes that are (or will be) publicly disclosed in patent applications owned by or licensed to us. Even if these patents issue from these patent applications and provide broad protection, it may be difficult or impossible to detect whether a competitor is practicing the proprietary methods claimed in such patent applications in order to discover their own product candidates and therapeutic targets. In such case, any patents that may issue from patent applications owned by or licensed to us would not provide us protection to prevent such activity. Additionally, a competitor may also practice such methods in a jurisdiction where we have no relevant patent protection. Our competitive position could be weakened by competitors or other third parties practicing the methods claimed in these patent applications in a manner we do not detect or in jurisdictions in which we or our licensors do not obtain any relevant patent protection.