Zentalis Pharmaceuticals Inc

Previous wording

We have incurred net losses in almost every reporting period since our inception, we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we have financed our operations principally through private financings, our initial public offering, or IPO, and follow-on public offerings of our common stock. We incurred a net loss of $292.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. We had a net loss of $78.2 million and a net loss of $175.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2023, respectively. As of June 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $966.8 million. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development of our product candidates and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we discover, develop and market additional potential products.

Current wording

We have incurred net losses in almost every reporting period since our inception, we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we have financed our operations principally through private financings, our initial public offering, or IPO, and follow-on public offerings of our common stock. We incurred a net loss of $292.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. We had a net loss of $118.4 million and a net loss of $231.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 and September 30, 2023, respectively. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.0 billion. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development of our product candidates and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we discover, develop and market additional potential products.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2024, we had cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities of $426.4 million. Based on current business plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of June 30, 2024 will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2026, but will not be sufficient to fund all of the activities that are necessary to complete the development of our product candidates. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2024, we had cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities of $391.3 million. Based on current business plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of September 30, 2024 will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2026, but will not be sufficient to fund all of the activities that are necessary to complete the development of our product candidates. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.

Previous wording

We are substantially dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, azenosertib. If we are unable to resolve the partial clinical hold, complete development of, obtain approval for and commercialize azenosertib in a timely manner, our business will be harmed.

Current wording

We are substantially dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, azenosertib. If we are unable to complete development of, obtain approval for and commercialize azenosertib in a timely manner, our business will be harmed.

Previous wording

•the successful and timely completion of our ongoing and planned clinical trials, including resolution of the partial clinical hold recently placed by the FDA on certain of our azenosertib clinical studies;

Current wording

•the successful and timely completion of our ongoing and planned clinical trials;

Previous wording

We have and in the future may seek third-party collaborators for the research, development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. For example, we are collaborating with Pfizer, GSK and Dana Farber on the development of azenosertib, and we licensed ZPC-21, our preclinical ROR1 ADC, and our ADC platform technology to Immunome. Our likely collaborators in any future collaboration arrangements we may enter into include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. If we were to enter into any collaboration arrangements with third parties, those agreements may limit our control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development and commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration in which we have entered or may enter. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Current wording

We have and in the future may seek third-party collaborators for the research, development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. For example, we are collaborating with Pfizer, GSK and Dana Farber on the development of azenosertib. Our likely collaborators in any future collaboration arrangements we may enter into include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. If we were to enter into any collaboration arrangements with third parties, those agreements may limit our control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development and commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration in which we have entered or may enter. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Previous wording

In addition, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or 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 EU 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 that are ongoing, will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us, our collaborators and third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our development plans.

Current wording

In addition, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or 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 EU Clinical Trials

Previous wording

•the imposition of a clinical hold by the FDA, such as the partial clinical hold on certain of our azenosertib clinical studies in June 2024;

Current wording

•the imposition of a clinical hold by the FDA;

Previous wording

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial, or by the FDA or comparable ex-U.S. regulatory authorities. Such a suspension or termination may be due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable ex-U.S. regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, such as the partial clinical hold placed by the FDA on certain of our azenosertib clinical studies in June 2024, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments will require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs or ethics committees for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Current wording

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial, or by the FDA or comparable ex-U.S. regulatory authorities. Such a suspension or termination may be due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable ex-U.S. regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments will require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs or ethics committees for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Previous wording

In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (which first became due by certain manufacturers in 2023, as applicable); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). For more information about the IRA and pricing regulations at the state level, see “Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Legal Compliance Matters – We may face difficulties from changes to current regulations and future legislation.” below.

Current wording

In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap (with resulting prices for the initial ten drugs first effective in 2026); imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (which first became due in 2023, as applicable); redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit (beginning in 2024); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). For more information about the IRA and pricing regulations at the state level, see “Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Legal Compliance Matters – We may face difficulties from changes to current regulations and future legislation.” below.

Previous wording

If significant AEs or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA or other comparable regulatory authorities, or an IRB may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. For example, as described above, the FDA recently placed certain of our azenosertib clinical trials on partial clinical hold following the deaths of two patients in our DENALI study. Although we believe we will be able to resolve the partial clinical hold, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in these efforts or that similar safety issues will not arise in the future.

Current wording

If significant AEs or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA or other comparable regulatory authorities, or an IRB may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects.

Previous wording

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, was passed, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures will impact our business.

Current wording

For example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, was passed, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures will impact our business.

Previous wording

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Most recently, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap (with resulting prices for the initial ten drugs first effective 2026); imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit (beginning in 2024); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. HHS has issued and will continue to issue guidance implementing the IRA, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. While the impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, it is likely to be significant.

Current wording

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Most significantly, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap (with resulting prices for the initial ten drugs first effective 2026); imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023, as applicable); redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit (beginning in 2024); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. HHS has issued and will continue to issue guidance implementing the IRA, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. While the impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, it is likely to be significant.

Previous wording

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA or ex-U.S. regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Current wording

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA or ex-U.S. regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny

Previous wording

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses, our and our licensors’ or licensees’ ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others, and our and our licensors' or licensees’ability to successfully defend our patents, including those that we have in-licensed or out-licensed, against third-party challenges. If we or our licensors or licensees are unable to protect our intellectual property rights or if our intellectual property rights are inadequate for our technology or our product candidates, our competitive position could be harmed. We and our licensors or licensees generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and outside of the United States related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses that are important to our business. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents, if issued, will be infringed or will not be designed around by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. The degree of future protection for our and our licensors’ or licensees’ proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our or our licensors’ or licensees’ rights or permit us or our licensors or licensees to gain or keep any competitive advantage. These uncertainties and/or limitations in our and our licensors’ or licensees’ ability to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses, our and our licensors’ ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others, and our and our licensors' ability to successfully defend our patents, including those that we have in-licensed, against third-party challenges. If we or our licensors are unable to protect our intellectual property rights or if our intellectual property rights are inadequate for our technology or our product candidates, our competitive position could be harmed. We and our licensors generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and outside of the United States related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses that are important to our business. Our or our licensors’ patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our or our licensors’ patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents, if issued, will be infringed or will not be designed around by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. The degree of future protection for our and our licensors’ proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our or our licensors’ rights or permit us or our licensors to gain or keep any competitive advantage. These uncertainties and/or limitations in our and our licensors’ ability to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

Although we license issued patents in the United States and ex-U.S. countries, we cannot be certain that the claims in our other U.S. pending patent applications, corresponding international patent applications and patent applications in certain ex-U.S. countries will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in ex-U.S. countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in our issued patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.

Current wording

Although we in-license issued patents in the United States and ex-U.S. countries, we cannot be certain that the claims in our other U.S. pending patent applications, corresponding international patent applications and patent applications in certain ex-U.S. countries will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in ex-U.S. countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in our issued patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.

Previous wording

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or our licensors or licensees or or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

Current wording

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or our licensors or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

Previous wording

•our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources than we or our licensors or licensees do and many of whom have made significant investments in competing technologies, may seek, may have filed patent applications, or may have already obtained patents that will limit, interfere with or block our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates;

Current wording

•our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources than we or our licensors do and many of whom have made significant investments in competing technologies, may seek, may have filed patent applications, or may have already obtained patents that will limit, interfere with or block our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates;

Previous wording

The patent prosecution process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we or our licensors or licensees may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also possible that we or our licensors or licensees may not identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, directed to technology that we out-license or in-license, including those which we out-license to our licensees and those which we in-license from our licensors and from third parties. We also may require the cooperation of our licensors or licensees in order to enforce the licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We cannot be certain that patent prosecution and maintenance activities by our licensors or licensees have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. If they fail to do so, this could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license or out-license, and as a result our and our licensees’ ability to develop and commercialize products or product candidates may be adversely affected and we and our licensees may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

Current wording

The patent prosecution process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we or our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also possible that we or our licensors may not identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, directed to technology that we in-license, including those which we in-license from our licensors and from third parties. We also may require the cooperation of our licensors in order to enforce the licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We cannot be certain that patent prosecution and maintenance activities by our licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. If they fail to do so, this could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize products or product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

Previous wording

In addition, although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors, licensors, licensees, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

Current wording

In addition, although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors, licensors, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

Previous wording

If the scope of any patent protection our licensors or licensees obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if our licensors or licensees lose any of the patent protection we license, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical product candidates would be adversely affected.

Current wording

If the scope of any patent protection our licensors obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if our licensors lose any of the patent protection we license, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical product candidates would be adversely affected.

Previous wording

Moreover, the scope of claims in a patent application can be significantly reduced before any claims in a patent issue, and claim scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we license may be challenged or circumvented by third parties or may be narrowed or invalidated as a result of challenges by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Moreover, the scope of claims in a patent application can be significantly reduced before any claims in a patent issue, and claim scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we in-license currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we in-license may be challenged or circumvented by third parties or may be narrowed or invalidated as a result of challenges by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our or our licensors’ patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our in-licensed patents may not cover our product candidates or may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant review, or PGR, and inter partes review, or IPR, or other similar proceedings in the USPTO or ex-U.S. patent offices challenging our patent rights. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we or our licensors or licensees and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors or licensees has been found. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we or licensors or licensees were or are aware of, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors or licensees, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us. Such loss of in-licensed patent rights, loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial costs and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. 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 product candidates.

Current wording

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our in-licensed patents may not cover our product candidates or may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant review, or PGR, and inter partes review, or IPR, or other similar proceedings in the USPTO or ex-U.S. patent offices challenging our patent rights. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity of our or our licensors’ patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we or our licensors and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors has been found. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we or licensors were or are aware of, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us. Such loss of in-licensed patent rights, loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial costs and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications or those of our licensors is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Previous wording

The patent protection and patent prosecution for some of our product candidates may be dependent on our licensors or licensees and third parties.

Current wording

The patent protection and patent prosecution for some of our product candidates may be dependent on our licensors and third parties.

Previous wording

We or our licensors or licensees 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 as to form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, written descriptions, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments, patent term extensions or any foreign equivalents thereof. If we or our licensors or licensees, whether current or future, fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors or licensees 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 licensed patents or patent applications, such patents 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.

Current wording

We or our 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 as to form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, written descriptions, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments, patent term extensions or any foreign equivalents thereof. If we or our licensors, whether current or future, fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our 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 in-licensed patents or patent applications, such patents 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.

Previous wording

As a licensee or licensor, we may rely on third parties to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the licensed intellectual property under some of our license agreements. We may not have primary control over these activities for certain of our patents or patent applications and other intellectual property rights. We cannot be certain that such activities by third parties have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreements with some of our licensors or licensees, the licensors or licensees may have the right to control enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we will require the cooperation of our licensors or licensees. We cannot be certain that our licensors or licensees will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business. If any of our licensors or licensees or any of our future licensors or licensees or future collaborators fails to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for patents covering any of our product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

Current wording

As a licensee, we may rely on third parties to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the in-licensed intellectual property under some of our license agreements. We may not have primary control over these activities for certain of our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors and other intellectual property rights. We cannot be certain that such activities by third parties have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreements with some of our licensors, the licensors may have the right to control enforcement of our in-licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we will require the cooperation of our licensors. We cannot be certain that our licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the in-licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to in-license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business. If any of our licensors or any of our future licensors or licensees or future collaborators fails to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for patents covering any of our product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

Previous wording

In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have acquired or licensed from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensors or licensees and their counsel that took place prior to us assuming control over patent prosecution.

Current wording

In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have acquired or in-licensed from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensors and their counsel that took place prior to us assuming control over patent prosecution.

Previous wording

Our technology acquired or licensed from various third parties, including our licensors, may be subject to retained rights. Our licensors often retain certain rights under their agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying technology for use in fields other than the fields licensed to us or for use in noncommercial academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the technology, and to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the technology. It is difficult to monitor whether our licensors limit their use of the technology to these uses, and we could incur substantial expenses to enforce our rights to our licensed technology in the event of misuse.

Current wording

Our technology acquired or in-licensed from various third parties, including our licensors, may be subject to retained rights. Our licensors often retain certain rights under their agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying technology for use in fields other than the fields licensed to us or for use in noncommercial academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the technology, and to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the technology. It is difficult to monitor whether our licensors limit their use of the technology to these uses, and we could incur substantial expenses to enforce our rights to our in-licensed technology in the event of misuse.

Previous wording

If we are limited in our ability to utilize acquired or licensed technologies, or if we lose our rights to critical licensed technology, we may be unable to successfully develop, out-license, market and sell our products, which could prevent or delay new product introductions. Our business strategy depends on the successful development of licensed and acquired technologies into commercial products. Therefore, any limitations on our ability to utilize these technologies may impair our ability to develop, out-license or market and sell our product candidate.

Current wording

If we are limited in our ability to utilize acquired or in-licensed technologies, or if we lose our rights to critical in-licensed technology, we may be unable to successfully develop, out-license, market and sell our products, which could prevent or delay new product introductions. Our business strategy depends on the successful development of in-licensed and acquired technologies into commercial products. Therefore, any limitations on our ability to utilize these technologies may impair our ability to develop, out-license or market and sell our product candidate.

Previous wording

Some of the intellectual property rights we have acquired or licensed or may acquire or license in the future may have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products relating to such intellectual property. To the extent any of our future intellectual property is also generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

Current wording

Some of the intellectual property rights we have acquired or in-licensed or may acquire or license in the future may have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products relating to such intellectual property. To the extent any of our future intellectual property is also generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

Previous wording

•we or our licensors or licensees might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents or patent application that we own or license;

Current wording

•we or our licensors might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents or patent application that we own or in-license;

Previous wording

•it is possible that our licensors’ or licensees’ pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;

Current wording

•it is possible that our licensors’ pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;

Previous wording

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Current wording

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents or the patents of our licensors could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Previous wording

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property rights or those of our licensors. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we and/or our licensors or licensees may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Further, our licensors or licensees may need to file infringement claims, but they may elect not file such claims. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our licensors or licensees or potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, the defendant could assert that our patent is invalid, not infringed and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation, defendant allegations of invalidity and/or unenforceability of asserted patents are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including patent-ineligible subject matter, lack of utility, lack of novelty, obviousness or lack of written description, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld material information from the USPTO or an ex-U.S. patent office or made a misleading statement during prosecution.

Current wording

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property rights or those of our licensors. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we and/or our licensors may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Further, our licensors may need to file infringement claims, but they may elect not file such claims. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our licensors or potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, the defendant could assert that such a patent is invalid, not infringed and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation, defendant allegations of invalidity and/or unenforceability of asserted patents are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including patent-ineligible subject matter, lack of utility, lack of novelty, obviousness or lack of written description, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld material information from the USPTO or an ex-U.S. patent office or made a misleading statement during prosecution.

Previous wording

Derivation or interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or our licensors or licensees, or declared by the USPTO or similar proceedings in ex-U.S. patent offices may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our or our licensors’ or licensees’ patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our or our licensors’ or licensees’ defense of such proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Current wording

Derivation or interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or our licensors, or declared by the USPTO or similar proceedings in ex-U.S. patent offices may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our or our licensors’ patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our or our licensors’ defense of such proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Previous wording

In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 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 going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. 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 were the first to either (1) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications.

Current wording

In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 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 going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. 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 were the first to either (1) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors.

Previous wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves a high degree of technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. In addition, Congress or other ex-U.S. legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.

Current wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves a high degree of technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our or our licensors’ patents or in third-party patents. In addition, Congress or other ex-U.S. legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.

Previous wording

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our or our licensors’ or licensees’ 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 the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in ex-U.S. jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our or our licensors’ or licensees’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future.

Current wording

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our or our licensors’ 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 the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in ex-U.S. jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our or our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future.

Previous wording

We or our licensors or licensees may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

Current wording

We or our licensors may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our or our licensors’ patents and other intellectual property.

Previous wording

We or our licensors or licensees may be subject to claims that former employees or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we or our licensors or licensees fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors or licensees are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distraction to management and other employees.

Current wording

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees or other third parties have an ownership interest in our or our licensors’ patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. 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 an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distraction to management and other employees.

Previous wording

If we or our licensors or licensees do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Current wording

If we or our licensors do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.