Item 1A. Risk Factors
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. For a detailed discussion of the risks that affect our business, please refer to the section titled “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in each of our 2019 Form 10-K, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2020 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in the section titled “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in each of our 2019 Form 10-K and quarterly reports, such as risks related to our need to raise additional funding, fluctuation of our quarterly financial results, and our ability to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.
The risk factor set forth below represents new risk factors or those containing changes, including material changes, to the similarly titled risk factor included in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed with the SEC on March 30, 2020.
Our owned patent applications and in-licensed patents and patent applications and other intellectual property may be subject to priority disputes or to inventorship disputes and similar proceedings. If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.
Although we have an option to exclusively license certain patents and patent applications directed to Cas9 and Cas12a from Editas, who in turn has licensed such patents from various academic institutions including the Broad Institute, we do not currently have a license to such patents and patent applications. Certain of the U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application to which we hold an option are co-owned by the Broad Institute and MIT, and in some cases co-owned by the Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard, which we refer to together as the Boston Licensing Parties, and were involved in U.S. interference No. 106,048 with one U.S. patent application co-owned by the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, which we refer to together as the University of California. On September 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the CAFC, affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO’s, or PTAB’s, holding that there was no interference-in-fact. An interference is a proceeding within the USPTO to determine priority of invention of the subject matter of patent claims filed by different parties.
On June 24, 2019, the PTAB declared an interference (U.S. Interference No. 106,115) between 10 U.S. patent applications ((U.S. Serial Nos. 15/947,680; 15/947,700; 15/947,718; 15/981,807; 15/981,808; 15/981,809; 16/136,159; 16/136,165; 16/136,168; and 16/136,175) that are co-owned by the University of California, and 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and 9,840,713, and U.S. Serial No. 14/704,551)) that are co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties, which we have an option to under the Editas License Agreement. In the declared interference, the University of California has been designated as the junior party and the Boston Licensing Parties have been designated as the senior party.
As a result of the declaration of interference, an adversarial proceeding in the USPTO before the PTAB has been initiated, which is declared to ultimately determine priority, specifically and which party was first to invent the claimed subject matter. Following oral arguments on the parties’ motions in May 2020, the PTAB issued a decision in September 2020, which included, in part, denying the Boston Licensing Parties motion that the University of California should be estopped in the current proceeding by the PTAB’s decision in the prior interference proceeding between the parties (No. 106,048), finding that the Boston Licensing Parties remain the senior party in the proceeding, and holding that the interference will proceed to the second, priority phase. An interference is typically divided into two phases. The first phase is referred to as the motions or preliminary motions phase while the second is referred to as the priority phase. In the first phase, each party may raise issues including but not limited to those relating to the patentability of a party’s claims based on prior art, written description, and enablement. A party also may seek an earlier priority benefit or may challenge whether the declaration of interference was proper in the first place. Priority, or a determination of who first invented the commonly claimed invention, is determined in the second phase of an interference. Although we cannot predict with any certainty how long the priority phase will actually take, it may take approximately a year or longer before a decision is made by the PTAB. The 10 University of California patent applications and the 13 U.S. patents and one U.S. patent application co-owned by the Boston Licensing Parties involved in U.S. Interference No. 106,115 generally relate to CRISPR/Cas9 systems or eukaryotic cells comprising CRISPR/Cas9 systems having fused or covalently linked RNA and the use thereof in eukaryotic cells. There can be no assurance that the U.S. interference will be resolved in favor of the Boston Licensing Parties. If the U.S. interference resolves in favor of University of California, or if the Boston Licensing Parties’ patents and patent application are narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, we may lose the ability to license the optioned patents and patent application and our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected if we cannot obtain a license to relevant third party patents that cover our product candidates. 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 nonexclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could
33
require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a th ird-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our base editing platform technology or product candidates or such commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our busin ess.
We or our licensors may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our owned patent applications or in-licensed patents or patent applications or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners to enforce any patents that issue from such patent applications against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.
If we or our licensors are unsuccessful in any interference proceedings or other priority, validity (including any patent oppositions), or inventorship disputes to which we or they are subject, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights through the loss of one or more of our owned, licensed, or optioned patents, or such patent claims may be narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, or through loss of exclusive ownership of or the exclusive right to use our owned or in-licensed patents. In the event of loss of patent rights as a result of any of these disputes, we may be required to obtain and maintain licenses from third parties, including parties involved in any such interference proceedings or other priority or inventorship disputes. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or may be non-exclusive. If we are unable to obtain and maintain such licenses, we may need to cease the development, manufacture, and commercialization of one or more of the product candidates we may develop. The loss of exclusivity or the narrowing of our patent claims could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates. Even if we or our licensors are successful in an interference proceeding or other similar priority or inventorship disputes, it could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.