MNKD 2017 Annual Report

Leahy-Smith Act has greatly expanded the options for post-grant review of patents that can be brought by third parties. In particular Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), available against any issued United States patent (pre-and post-AIA), has resulted in a higher rate of claim invalidation, due in part to the much reduced opportunity to repair claims by amendment as compared to re-examination, as well as the lower standard of proof used at the USPTO as compared to the federal courts. With the passage of time an increasing number of patents related to successful pharmaceutical products are being subjected to IPR. Moreover, the filing of IPR petitions has been used by short-sellers as a tool to help drive down stock prices. We may not prevail in any litigation, post-grant review, or interference proceedings in which we are involved and, even if we are successful, these proceedings may result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management. Further, we may not be able, alone or with our collaborators and licensors, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price of our common stock and other securities may decline. If our technologies conflict with the proprietary rights of others, we may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings and we could face substantial monetary damages and be precluded from commercializing our products, which would materially harm our business and financial condition. Biotechnology patents are numerous and may, at times, conflict with one another. As a result, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover the multitude of biotechnology product types. Ultimately, the courts must determine the scope of coverage afforded by a patent and the courts do not always arrive at uniform conclusions. A patent owner may claim that we are making, using, selling or offering for sale an invention covered by the owner’s patents and may go to court to stop us from engaging in such activities. Such litigation is not uncommon in our industry. Patent lawsuits can be expensive and would consume time and other resources. There is a risk that a court would decide that we are infringing a third party’s patents and would order us to stop the activities covered by the patents, including the commercialization of our products. In addition, there is a risk that we would have to pay the other party damages for having violated the other party’s patents (which damages may be increased, as well as attorneys’ fees ordered paid, if infringement is found to be willful), or that we will be required to obtain a license from the other party in order to continue to commercialize the affected products, or to design our products in a manner that does not infringe a valid patent. We may not prevail in any legal action, and a required license under the patent may not be available on acceptable terms or at all, requiring cessation of activities that were found to infringe a valid patent. We also may not be able to develop a non-infringing product design on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Moreover, certain components of Afrezza may be manufactured outside the United States and imported into the United States. As such, third parties could file complaints under 19 U.S.C. Section 337(a)(1)(B) (a “337 action”) with the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”). A 337 action can be expensive and would consume time and other resources. There is a risk that the ITC would decide that we are infringing a third party’s patents and either enjoin us from importing the infringing products or parts thereof into the United States or set a bond in an amount that the ITC considers would offset our competitive advantage from the continued importation during the statutory review period. The bond could be up to 100% of the value of the patented products. We may not prevail in any legal action, and a required license under the patent may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all, resulting in a permanent injunction preventing any further importation of the infringing products or parts 40