MNKD 2017 Annual Report

literature often trails behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first inventor of the subject matter covered by our pending patent applications or that we were the first to file patent applications on such inventions. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, in the United States prior to March 15, 2013, the first to make the claimed invention is entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. After March 15, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), or the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States moved to a first inventor to file system. In general, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Moreover, the term of a patent is limited and, as a result, the patents protecting our products expire at various dates. For example, some patents providing protection for Afrezza inhalation powder have terms extending into 2020, 2026, 2028, 2029, and 2030. In addition, patents providing protection for our inhaler and cartridges have terms extending into 2023, 2031 and 2032, and we have method of treatment claims that extend into 2026, 2029, 2030 and 2031. As and when these different patents expire, Afrezza could become subject to increased competition. As a consequence, we may not be able to recover our development costs. An issued patent is presumed valid unless it is declared otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its validity or enforceability and it is uncertain how much protection, if any, will be afforded by our patents. A third party may challenge the validity or enforceability of a patent after its issuance by various proceedings such as oppositions in foreign jurisdictions, or post grant proceedings, including, oppositions, re-examinations or other review in the United States. In some instances we may seek re-examination or reissuance of our own patents. If we attempt to enforce our patents, they may be challenged in court where they could be held invalid, unenforceable, or have their breadth narrowed to an extent that would destroy their value. We also rely on unpatented technology, trade secrets, know-how and confidentiality agreements. We require our officers, employees, consultants and advisors to execute proprietary information and invention and assignment agreements upon commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements provide that all inventions developed by the individual on behalf of us must be assigned to us and that the individual will cooperate with us in connection with securing patent protection on the invention if we wish to pursue such protection. We also execute confidentiality agreements with outside collaborators. There can be no assurance, however, that our inventions and assignment agreements and our confidentiality agreements will provide meaningful protection for our inventions, trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of such information. If any trade secret, know-how or other technology not protected by a patent were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected. If we become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our collaborators or licensors, we would be required to devote substantial time and resources to prosecute or defend such proceedings. Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our collaborators or licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours 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 its technology. A court may also decide to award us a royalty from an infringing party instead of issuing an injunction against the infringing activity. An adverse determination of any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Interference proceedings brought by the USPTO, may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our pre-AIA patent applications or those of our collaborators or licensors. Additionally, the 39