We are also aware of PCT international patent application PCT/ US2018/017200, titled “Antipurinergic Compounds and Uses thereof,” which lists CSP Pharma, Inc. as Applicant, filed on February 7, 2018, published as WO 2018/148262 on August 16, 2018, and claiming priority to U.S. provisional patent application no. 62/456,438, filed on February 8, 2017. The patent application describes compositions and methods for treating neurodevelopmental disorders. The compositions contain an APT, such as suramin, and a carrier formulated for non-intravenous administration. The neurodevelopmental disorders include ASD. From publicly available databases, we are aware that a national phase application of this PCT patent application, U.S. application Serial No. 16/484,284 was filed in the United States. However, the US Patent Office issued a Notice of Abandonment on August 12, 2021 for applicant’s failure to respond to the office action of January 14, 2021. No further child applications are listed as pending.
We are also aware of PCT international patent application PCT/US2017/041932, titled “Diagnostic and Methods of Treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorders,” which lists The Regents of the University of California as Applicant, filed on July 13, 2017, published as WO 2018/013811 on January 18, 2018, and claiming priority to U.S. provisional patent application nos. 62/464,369, filed on February 27, 2017 and 62/362,564, filed on July 14, 2016. The patent application describes biomarkers for diagnosing and predicting the development of chronic fatigue syndrome and methods of treating a mitochondrial disease or disorder, such as ASD, by administering an effective amount of an APT, such as suramin. Publicly available databases show no pending national or regional phase patent applications.
Because national phase applications of PCT/US2018/017674 are still pending at least in the United States and China, it is not certain if any patents will ultimately issue from these applications nor is it possible to predict the resultant claim scope of any such issued patent. We will continue to monitor the prosecution of these patent applications from publicly available documents.
As discussed above, our success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the proprietary technologies of others. We are aware of the risks associated with the valid patent rights of third parties, however, identification of these third party proprietary technologies and patent rights is difficult because patent searching is imperfect. Also, because patent applications are maintained in secrecy until publication, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of PAX-101 or any of our other product candidates. Based on as yet unforeseen activities associated with the intellectual property of such third parties we may have to make modifications to our development plans, the filing of new patent applications and the prosecution of our patent portfolio, and our business.
A number of companies, including several major pharmaceutical companies, have conducted research on APTs and their effect on purinergic receptors and potential therapies which resulted in the filing of many patent applications related to this research. If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued United States patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every issued United States patent. This means that, in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims.
If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued United States patent in an administrative trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, we would have to prove that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, even if we were successful in such an invalidity challenge, the decision could be appealed by the other party to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could involve significant resources to litigate and we cannot predict whether we would prevail on appeal. There is no assurance that a jury and/or court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity or enforceability.
Accordingly, if patents exist or are in the future granted that conflict with our patents, and if we face an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or if we are unable to obtain necessary licenses, we could be prevented from developing and commercializing PAX-101 or another product candidate, which in turn would harm the viability of our company and our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results.
We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their former employers.
As is commonplace in our industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject in the future to claims that our employees or prospective employees are subject to a continuing obligation to their former employers (such as non-competition or non- solicitation obligations) or claims that our employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. 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 management.