Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-03-12 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that as of December 31, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-13 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2024, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer has concluded that as of December 31, 2024, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-05 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2023, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer has concluded that as of December 31, 2023, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-07 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Opposition Proceeding On October 19, 2016, the European Patent Office granted European Patent No. 2 575 835 B1 to The University of Tokyo. On April 25, 2017, we filed a notice of opposition to this patent in the European Patent Office, requesting that it be revoked in its entirety for the reasons set forth in our opposition. The oral proceedings were held at the European Patent Office on February 18, 2019 and the Opposition Division required The University of Tokyo to narrow the scope of the claims of the patent. The University of Tokyo appealed certain aspects of the Opposition Division’s decision, as did we and other opponents. On November 18, 2022, The University of Tokyo requested termination of the appeal proceeding and revocation of its patent. On December 19, 2022, the Opposition Division officially terminated the appeal proceeding, and European Patent No. 2 575 835 B1 has been revoked in its entirety. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer has concluded that as of December 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-01 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Opposition Proceeding On October 19, 2016, the European Patent Office granted European Patent No. 2 575 835 B1 to The University of Tokyo. On April 25, 2017, we filed a notice of opposition to this patent in the European Patent Office, requesting that it be revoked in its entirety for the reasons set forth in our opposition. The oral proceedings were held at the European Patent Office on February 18, 2019 and the Opposition Division required The University of Tokyo to narrow the scope of the claims of the patent. The University of Tokyo has appealed certain aspects of the Opposition Division’s decision, as have we and other opponents. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer has concluded that as of December 31, 2021, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.