ACHN 2017 Annual Report

our ability to maintain, obtain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Accordingly, rights under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection for our drug candidates or provide sufficient protection to afford us a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes. We cannot guarantee that any patents will issue from any pending or future patent applications owned by or licensed to us. Patent applications in the United States are maintained in confidence for up to 18 months after their filing. In some cases, however, patent applications remain confidential in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which we refer to as the U.S. Patent Office, for the entire time prior to issuance as a U.S. patent. Similarly, publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors or co-owners were the first to invent, or the first to file patent applications on, our drug candidates or their intended uses. Furthermore, we may not have identified all U.S. and foreign patents or published applications that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our drugs or by covering similar technologies that affect our drug market or patentability, or all prior art that could be considered relevant to our patent claims. The claims of any patents which have already issued or may issue in the future and are owned or controlled by us, may not confer on us significant commercial protection against competing products. Additionally, our patents may be challenged by third parties, resulting in the patent being deemed invalid, unenforceable or narrowed in scope, or the third party may circumvent any such issued patents. The cost of these procedures could be substantial, and it is possible that our efforts would be unsuccessful resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position. Also, our pending patent applications may not issue, and we may not receive any additional patents. Our patents might not contain claims that are sufficiently broad to prevent others from utilizing our technologies. For instance, the issued patents relating to our drug candidates may be limited to a particular molecule or a related group of molecules. Consequently, our competitors may independently develop competing products that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property. To the extent a competitor can develop similar products using a different molecule, our patents may not prevent others from directly competing with us. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, was signed into law in September 2011, and many of the substantive changes became effective in March 2013. The America Invents Act revised United States patent law in part by changing the standard for patent approval from a “first to invent” standard to a “first to file” standard and developing a post-grant review system. This legislation changes United States patent law in a way that may weaken our ability to obtain patent protection in the United States for those applications filed after March 2013. For example, if we are the first to invent a new drug or its use, but another party is the first to file a patent application on this invention, under the new law the other party may be entitled to the patent rights on the invention. The America Invents Act created for the first-time new procedures to challenge issued patents in the United States, including post-grant review and inter partes review proceedings, which some third parties have been using to cause the cancellation of selected or all claims of issued patents of competitors. For a patent with a priority date of March 16, 2013 or later, a petition for post-grant review can be filed by a third party in a nine-month window from issuance of the patent. A petition for inter partes review can be filed immediately following the issuance of a patent if the patent was filed prior to March 16, 2013. A petition for inter partes review can be filed after the nine-month period for filing a post-grant review petition has expired for a patent with a priority date of March 16, 2013 or later. Post-grant review proceedings can be brought on any ground of challenge, whereas inter partes review proceedings can only be brought to raise a challenge based on published prior art. These adversarial actions at the U.S. Patent Office review patent claims without the presumption of validity afforded to U.S. patents in lawsuits in U.S. federal courts and use a lower burden of proof than used in litigation in U.S. federal courts. Therefore, it is generally considered easier for a competitor or third party to have a U.S. patent cancelled in a Patent Office post-grant review or inter partes review proceeding than invalidated in a litigation in a U.S. federal court. If any of our patents are challenged by a third party in such a U.S. patent office proceeding, there is no guarantee that we or our licensors will be successful in defending the patent, which would result in a loss of the challenged patent right to us. 54