ArriVent BioPharma, Inc.

Previous wording

Our patent rights may be subject to priority, validity, inventorship and enforceability disputes. Legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, are unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our management and scientific personnel from their normal responsibilities and generally harm our business. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, such patents and patent applications may be narrowed, invalidated, cancelled, or held unenforceable. In July 2026, we received a notice from the USPTO that the USPTO has granted the Request of the RE ’687 Patent. We believe the Request lacks merit and will vigorously defend the patentability of the claims of the RE ’687 Patent during ex parte reexamination. We cannot predict the outcome of the ex parte reexamination proceeding, which could result in all or some of the claims being confirmed as patentable, narrowed, or cancelled as deemed unpatentable. If we are unsuccessful in defending the RE ‘687 Patent and the claims of the RE ‘687 Patent are narrowed or cancelled during ex parte reexamination, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

Current wording

Our patent rights may be subject to priority, validity, inventorship and enforceability disputes. Legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, are unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our management and scientific personnel from their normal responsibilities and generally harm our business. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, such patents and patent applications may be narrowed, invalidated, cancelled, or held unenforceable. In July 2026, we received a notice from the USPTO that the USPTO has granted the Request of the RE ’687 Patent. We believe the Request lacks merit and will vigorously defend the patentability of the claims of the RE ’687 Patent during ex parte reexamination. On October 19, 2026, we received a notice from the USPTO that the USPTO has closed prosecution on the merits of the ex parte reexamination and indicating that the USPTO intends to issue a reexamination certificate confirming all claims of the RE ’687 Patent subject to ex parte reexamination. We cannot predict the outcome of the ex parte reexamination proceeding, which could result in all or some of the claims being confirmed as patentable, narrowed, or cancelled as deemed unpatentable. If we are unsuccessful in defending the RE ’687 Patent and the claims of the RE ’687 Patent are narrowed or cancelled during ex parte reexamination, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

Previous wording

litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of or amendment to our patent rights in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or prevent third parties from competing with 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 or our licensing partners and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our current product candidates and any future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

If we or our licensors initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our current product candidates or any of our future product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, lack of sufficient written description, failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter or obviousness-type double patenting. 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 raise claims challenging the validity or enforceability of a patent before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of or amendment to our patent rights in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or prevent third parties from competing with 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 or our licensing partners and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our current product candidates and any future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.