53 We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confid f entiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific f collabor a ators, CROs, contract manufact f ur t ers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confid f entiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, train our employees not to bring or use proprietary information or technology from former employers to us or in their work and remind former employees when they leave their employment of their confid f entiality obligations to us. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Despite our effo f rts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to contain such breaches or disclosures or obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappr a opriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictabl a e. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawful f ly obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed without the protection of a confid f entiality agreement found unenfor f ceable by relevant courts or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed. We may a be subject to clai l ms i that our empl m oy l ees,s consulta l nts, t or advisorsr have wrongful f ly l used or disc i losed alle l ge e d trade secretst of theiri current or former employe o rs or clai l ms i assertin t g ownershipi of what we regar e d as our own intellectual property. t Many of our employees, consultants and advisors are currently or were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors and potential competitors. Although we try r to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subj u ect to claims that we or these individuals have improperly used or disclosed intellectua t l property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectua t l property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful f in defending against such claims, litigation could result in subs u tantial costs and be a distraction to management. In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectua t l property to execute agreements assigning such intellectua t l property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectua t l property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectua t l property rights may not be self-e f xecuting, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effe f ct on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Where post-filing date patent assignments are not executed by an inventor, it is our practice to employ and record the assignment provision that can be found in the employee’s employment agreement. This is done when possible, and when the intellectua t l property is of interest to us. Third-par - ty clai l ms i of intellectual propertyt infr n ingement,t misa i ppr a opriation or othe t r violat l io t n agains i t us or our collaborator t sr may a prevent or delay a the developm o ent and commercializ l atio t n of our product candid d at d es t ,s the ABC Plat l for t m r and othe t r technologi o es. The field of discovering treatments for retinal diseases is highly competitive and dynamic. Due to the focused research and development that is taking place in this field by several companies, including us and our competitors, the intellectual property landscape a is in flux, and it may remain uncertain in the future. As such, there may be significant intellectua t l property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned, and other third party, intellectua t l property and proprietary rights in the future. Our commercial success depends in part on our and our collabor a ators’ ability to avoid infringing, misappr a opriating and otherwise violating the patents and other intellectua t l property rights of third parties. There is a subs u tantial amount of complex litigation involving patents and other intellectua t l property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings challenging patents, including interfer f ence, derivation and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. As discussed above, due to changes in U.S. law referred to as patent reform, new procedur d es including inter partes review and post-grant review have been implemented. As stated above, this reform adds uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our patents in the future.