enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.
Patents covering our products could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad.
The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review (“IPR”), or interference proceedings or other similar proceedings challenging our patent rights. 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 technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which 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 technology or products. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.
For example, our U.S. Patent Nos. 9,855,369 and 9,149,952, which relate to our bioprinter technology, were the subject of IPR proceedings filed by Cellink AB and its subsidiaries (collectively, “BICO Group AB”), one of our competitors. Likewise, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,149,952, 9,855,369, 8,931,880, 9,227,339, 9,315,043 and 10,967,560 (all assigned to Organovo, Inc.) and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,051,654, 8,241,905, 8,852,932 and 9,752,116 (assigned to Clemson University and the University of Missouri, respectively) were implicated in a declaratory judgment complaint filed against Organovo, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary, by BICO Group AB and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. All of these matters were eventually settled in February 2022.
Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our inventions, patents or other intellectual property or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive and time consuming.
In addition, if we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our products, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise claims challenging the validity or enforceability of our patents before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation, including through re-examination, post-grant review, IPR, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our products. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
We may be involved in lawsuits or other proceedings to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our collaborators or licensors or our licensors may breach or otherwise prematurely terminate the provisions of our license agreements with them. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims or lawsuits, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our collaborators or licensors is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held