Print Page     Close Window     

SEC Filings

ONCOCYTE CORP filed this Form 424B5 on 02/08/2019
Entire Document


Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the United States and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, including India, China and certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in certain countries outside the United States and Europe. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, if our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities is inadequate. These products may compete with our diagnostic test, and our patents, if issued, or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.


Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and resources from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in major markets for our diagnostic test, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our diagnostic test. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate.


If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could be costly and time consuming and could prevent or delay us from developing or commercializing our diagnostic test.


There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current or future diagnostic test, including interference proceedings before the USPTO, misappropriation claims, or other allegations. The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. For example, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our diagnostic test or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents.


In addition, several of our employees have executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements with their previous employers, who may allege these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs, and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could significantly harm our business and operating results. We may also not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.


If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we may have to pay monetary damages, lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, or be forced to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the infringing diagnostic test. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing diagnostic test. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our diagnostic test or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.


Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our diagnostic test for an adequate amount of time.


Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new diagnostic tests, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other countries where we are prosecuting patents. In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent, which is limited to the approved indication or any additional indications approved during the period of extension. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authorities in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.



© Copyright BioTime, Inc.