What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-03-13 compared with 2025-02-27 · 13 added, 58 removed, 29 unchanged (71% of the section changed)

1 unchanged sentence

Patent Enforcement Actions Initiated by Aspen

• On January 28, 2021, a search order was executed and relevant evidence secured at the principal places of business of AMA S.p.A.

and AMA Composites S.r.l.

(collectively, AMA) in San Martino in Rio and Campogalliano, respectively, based on an ex-parte search order issued by the Court of Genoa, Italy at our request in connection with alleged infringement of the Italian part of our patents previously asserted successfully against Nano and Alison in Germany.

The Court of Genoa subsequently held a hearing and confirmed the validity of the search order and its execution.

While the search proceedings do not take a position on the infringement issues, we may use any evidence collected during the search proceedings to prove infringement.

As a result, on May 3, 2021, we filed an infringement complaint, a writ of summons, as known in Italy, at the Court of Genoa alleging that AMA has infringed the Italian part of three European patents (same patents asserted in the German litigation) and a patent on composition of aerogel-based composites in connection with AMA’s resale of aerogel products supplied by Chinese companies and sale of any products derived therefrom.

We are seeking monetary damages and preliminary injunction of AMA’s alleged infringing activities.

We issued a press release on May 6, 2021 describing the patent enforcement action of May 3, 2021, or the Press Release.

On June 7, 2021, AMA served us a copy of a request it previously filed with the Court of Genoa seeking an ex-parte preliminary injunction, or PI, against us alleging the Press Release constituted anti-competitive conduct and that it infringed AMA’s trademark rights.

The service of the request followed the court’s prior denial of the ex-parte order and an order requiring AMA to serve the request on us.

The court subsequently conducted an oral hearing on June 15, 2021.

On June 24, 2021, the court denied AMA’s request for a PI, reasoning that our Press Release was factually accurate, was not misleading, distinguished facts from opinions and that it was neither anti-competitive nor did it infringe trademark rights of AMA.

The Court also ordered AMA to pay certain of our legal fees.

On July 5, 2021, AMA informed us that it has decided not to appeal the denial of June 24, 2021.

We subsequently learned that AMA had also made a criminal complaint against our chief executive officer for defamation in connection with the Press Release.

On December 31, 2021, the local prosecutor, after reviewing the underlying facts, rejected AMA’s arguments and requested the judge overseeing the matter to dismiss the complaint against our chief executive officer, which the judge did in April 2022.

In November 2022, we learned that AMA had filed a second criminal complaint in a different jurisdiction in Italy.

The second criminal complaint contains the same allegations based on the same underlying facts as the first, however;

the judge in this jurisdiction has ordered the local prosecutor to carry out additional investigations and to identify the address of our chief executive officer for service.

In March 2023, we learned the prosecutor requested dismissal of the second criminal complaint.

In June 2023, we learned the judge formally dismissed the second criminal complaint.

In response to our infringement complaint, AMA also added as a counter-claim in connection with its claims regarding the Press Release, those same claims that it previously sought a preliminary injunction, which was denied by the court.

On April 15, 2022, the judge in the infringement case appointed two technical experts to provide a technical assessment of validity and infringement.

On December 31, 2022, we and AMA each filed the first technical briefs to the experts detailing our positions on validity and infringement.

In January and February 2023, we and AMA each filed second and third technical briefs to the experts addressing further arguments on validity and infringement.

In May 2023, the technical experts issued their preliminary report on validity and infringement in which they found that two of the asserted manufacturing patents were valid and that the third would be valid with a minor correction.

The experts also found that two of the manufacturing patents were infringed by AMA products purchased from Nano Tech Co., Ltd.

but that the scope of the composition patent was limited such that AMA’s products did not infringe the claims.

In June 2023, we and AMA each filed observations on the preliminary report from the technical experts.

In July 2023, the experts filed their final report,

which confirmed the conclusions from their preliminary report.

On July 26, 2023, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting the court to enjoin AMA’s sale of infringing aerogel products supplied by Nano Tech Co.

During September 2023, we and AMA submitted technical briefs regarding our motion for preliminary injunction.

On October 27, 2023, the judge issued an order dismissing our motion.

On November 7, 2023, we appealed the judge’s decision to a panel of the Court of Genoa and a hearing was held on November 29, 2023.

In February 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing our appeal, and the proceedings continued throughout 2024.

In January 2025, we reached a mutual agreement to resolve our patent infringement action against AMA, and the Court issued an order removing the case from the docket on January 28, 2025.

This settlement concludes our legal action against AMA regarding the unauthorized sale of infringing aerogel insulation materials in Europe.

• On April 18, 2023, we filed a patent infringement complaint at the Seoul Central District Court and a petition for investigation of unfair trade practices in the Korea Trade Commission (KTC).

• In April 2023, we filed a patent infringement complaint at the Seoul Central District Court and a petition for investigation of unfair trade practices in the Korea Trade Commission (KTC).

The complaint and petition alleged that Beerenberg Services AS, Beerenberg Korea Ltd., and Bronx (China) Co., Ltd.

2 unchanged sentences

and Guangdong Alison Hi Tech., Ltd.

in Germany and the US.

in Germany and the United States.

We are seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages against the defendants.

On May 30, 2023, we learned of a decision by the KTC to institute an investigation against Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

In May 2023, we learned of a decision by the KTC to institute an investigation against Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

and Bronx (China) Co., Ltd.

on the basis of our petition.

On August 4, 2023, Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

and Bronx (China) Co., Ltd.

submitted answers to our petition in which they confirmed that the accused infringing products are manufactured in China by Bronx (China) Co., Ltd.

and imported into Korea by Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

On August 17, 2023, we submitted responses to the answers from Beerenberg and Bronx.

In April 2024, the Korea Trade Commission (“KTC”) concluded its investigation into unfair international trade practices by Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

In April 2024, the KTC concluded its investigation into unfair international trade practices by Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

and Bronx (China) Co., Ltd., with a decision that our asserted composition patent claims were invalid and our asserted process patent claims were not infringed.

The KTC decision is under appeal in the Seoul Administrative Court.

In August 2024, we appealed the KTC decision at the Seoul Administrative Court.

In October 2024, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB) issued decisions in invalidation actions filed by Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

against our patents finding the patents invalid.

In November 2024, the Korean IPTAB issued a decision in the invalidation action filed in September 2023 by LG Chem Ltd.

finding our patents invalid.

In November 2024, the Korean IPTAB issued a decision in an invalidation action filed by LG Chem Ltd.

against one of the Korean patents opposed by Beerenberg, also finding the patent invalid.

1 unchanged sentence

against our process patents finding the patents invalid.

We disagree with the IPTAB decisions in the Beerenberg, LG Chem, and Bronx oppositions.

We disagree with the IPTAB decisions in both the Beerenberg and LG Chem oppositions.

Pro forma appeals at the Korean IP High Court were filed in January 2025 in the Beerenberg oppositions and in February 2025 in the LG Chem opposition.

The Bronx opposition decisions are also subject to appeal to the Korean IP High Court.

During 2025, we filed appeals at the Korean IP High Court against the Beerenberg, LG Chem, and Bronx IPTAB decisions.

These appeals remain pending as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our patent infringement case against Beerenberg Services AS and Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

at the Seoul District Court remains stayed pending the final outcome of the IPTAB proceedings and the associated appeals.

The opposition filed in August 2023 by LG Chem Ltd.

at the Japanese Patent Office against a Japanese counterpart of the Korean patents was concluded in our favor with a decision to maintain the patent and issuance of new Certificate of Patent on May 3, 2024.

at the Seoul District Court and our appeal of the KTC decision against Beerenberg Korea Ltd.

and Bronx (China) Co., Ltd.

at the Seoul Administrative Court are stayed pending the final outcome of the IPTAB appeals.

Other Litigation Matters

7 unchanged sentences

However, APN has yet to perfect its appeal.

To the extent APN seeks to pursue claims in an arbitration proceeding, Aspen intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter, including seeking its legal costs.

To the extent APN seeks to pursue claims in an arbitration proceeding, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this matter, including seeking our legal costs.

Due to their nature, it is difficult to predict the outcome or the costs involved in any litigation or administrative proceedings, including any appeals process.

4 unchanged sentences

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings