Risk Factors Summary
We are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those further described below in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, that represent challenges that we face in connection with the successful implementation of our strategy and the growth of our business. In particular, the following are principal factors that may offset our competitive strengths or have a negative effect on our business strategy, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial conditions, results of operations, future growth prospects, or cause a decline in the price of our common stock:
• We are a late-stage clinical oncology company with a limited operating history in developing pharmaceutical products, have not completed any registrational clinical trials and have no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate our current business and predict our future success and viability.
• We have incurred significant net losses for the past several years and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future and may never obtain profitability.
• We will require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our research and drug development programs or future commercialization efforts.
• The regulatory approval processes of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable with respect to outcomes. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, or to obtain regulatory approval to treat the indications we seek to treat with our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue or the level of planned product revenue and our business will be substantially harmed.
• We may encounter substantial delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
• The outcome of preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.
• Our current or future product candidates may cause adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable side effects when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs that may result in a safety profile that could inhibit regulatory approval, prevent market acceptance, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.
• Our business is substantially dependent on the successful development of our current and future product candidates. If we are unable to advance our current or future product candidates through clinical trials, obtain marketing approval to treat the indications that we seek to treat with our product candidates, and ultimately commercialize any product candidates we develop, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.
• We are substantially dependent on our platform, including our proprietary technologies, which are supported by our information technology systems. Any failure of these or other elements of our platform will materially harm our business.
• Our long-term prospects depend in part upon discovering, developing and commercializing product candidates, which may fail in development or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability.
• Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates is unproven, and we may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our platform and capabilities to build a pipeline of product candidates with commercial value.
• We have never commercialized a product candidate before and may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any products on our own or together with suitable collaborators.
Table of Contents
• We face significant competition, and if our competitors develop and market technologies or products more rapidly than we do or that are more effective, safer or less expensive than the product candidates we develop, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.
• We substantially rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and contract research organizations ("CROs"), to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.
• We contract with third parties, including contract manufacturing organizations ("CMOs") and consultants, for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials, and expect to continue to do so for commercialization of any approved product candidate. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or drugs or be able to acquire such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.
• The manufacture of drugs is complex and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide adequate supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or prevented.
• If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and/or other intellectual property protection for our product candidates and technologies, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates, products (if any) and technology may be impaired, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.
• Acquisitions, joint ventures or other transactions involving third parties could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our stockholders and otherwise harm our business.
Table of Contents
PART I
Item 1. Business
We are a late-stage clinical oncology company focused on keeping cancer patients alive and helping them thrive . We are developing and seeking to commercialize an entirely new category of anti-cancer medicines, Deep Cyclic Inhibitors, which we believe have the potential to be more effective and better tolerated targeted therapies.
Deep Cyclic Inhibitors
Deep Cyclic Inhibition® ("DCI") is a novel mechanism that aims to deprive tumor cells of the sustained proliferative signaling required for rapid growth, while sparing healthy cells through a cadenced, normalized level of signaling. Our Deep Cyclic Inhibitors inhibit clinically-validated core signaling pathways, such as the mitogen-activated protein kinase ("MAPK") pathway. Our novel approach is designed to improve durability and tolerability, and differentiates us from chronically targeted precision therapies, which are generally limited by toxicity, resistance and/or application to specific mutations only .
Atebimetinib (IMM-1-104)
Our lead product candidate, atebimetinib (IMM-1-104), is an oral, once-daily Deep Cyclic Inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (" MEK"), designed to improve durability and tolerability across many cancer indications, including MAPK pathway-driven tumors such as pancreatic cancer. We are currently in the process of initiating a Phase 3 clinical trial of atebimetinib, which we call the MAPKeeper 301 trial, to evaluate atebimetinib in combination with modified gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel ("mGnP") in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. We expect to dose the first patient in the MAPKeeper 301 trial in mid-2026.
MAPKeeper 301 is designed as a global Phase 3 registrational trial that will evaluate atebimetinib (320 mg QD) in comb ination with mGnP, compared to standard of care gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (" GnP") alone, in first-line metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ("PDAC"). The primary endpoint of MAPKeeper 301 is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall response rate, disease control rate, and quality of life measurements. We plan to enroll a total of approximately 510 patients in MAPKeeper 301, divided equally across the two arms.
In January 2026, we announced positive interim response and safety data from our ongoing Phase 2a clinical trial arm evaluating atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer patients, which is part of our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial of atebimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. We also announced that we expect the following near-term milestones related to atebimetinib: presenting further updated circulating tumor DNA data on acquired alterations from cancer patients treated with atebimetinib at a major scientific meeting, in the second quarter of 2026; announcing further updated survival data from over 50 first-line pancreatic cancer patients treated with atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial, in the first half of 2026; and dosing the first patient in a planned clinical trial of atebimetinib in combination with Libtayo® in non-small cell lung cancer patients, in the second half of 2026.
Our DCI Pipeline
Our development pipeline also includes our additional clinical-stage product candidate envometinib (IMM-6-415) and other early-stage research programs, including research focused on validated core cancer-signaling pathways outside of the MAPK pathway.
Overview
Our DCI platform is enabled by two key elements:
• Bioinformatics: our ability to efficiently analyze high-throughput molecular-level biochemical assays, including transcriptomics, genomics and/or proteomics, collectively referred to as Omics data; and
• 3D Tumor Modeling: our ability to conduct in vitro studies in our own labs using proprietary humanized 3D tumor growth assays that we believe predict in vivo activity more accurately than traditional 2D cell culture models.
These different types of biochemical and 3D tumor growth assays each provide us with unique information about the molecular mechanisms of disease biology and drug response and help to guide our translational planning and development.
Table of Contents
Since our inception, we have partnered with industry-leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to perform a variety of analyses that utilize our expertise in translational bioinformatics. Examples publicly disclosed by our partners include our analyses of ibrutinib, ipilimumab, daratumumab, glatiramer acetate and pridopidine.
We began applying our proprietary platform and approach to internally develop our wholly owned pipeline of Deep Cyclic Inhibitors, orally administered small molecule drug programs. Our approach played a critical role in determining the most important characteristics for, and the creation of, atebimetinib and envometinib. Specifically, our platform enables us to:
• leverage insights from human data to compare distinct groups who differ in a certain aspect of disease or response to a particular therapy, in order to identify disease transcriptional profiles we aim to counteract;
• identify novel targets and new ways to drug existing targets using our technology and insights into mechanisms of response;
• generate novel chemistry that is designed to overcome MAPK-feedback loops and other adaptive resistance mechanisms to achieve optimal signaling dynamics; and
• profile product candidates in a large number of proprietary humanized 3D tumor growth assays using our proprietary translational planning to more accurately predict drug response compared to standard models and identify the types of cancer we believe most likely to be sensitive to such product candidates.
Our current programs are focused on tumors driven by mutations of the MAPK signaling pathway (i.e., RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK), and other relevant signaling pathways outside of the MAPK pathway. Existing drugs targeting the MAPK pathway are generally limited by toxicity, resistance and/or are narrowly focused on subpopulations with specific mutations. The MAPK pathway functions to drive cell proliferation, differentiation, survival and a variety of other cellular functions that are critical for the formation and progression of tumors.
Fundamental Cancer Signaling Cellular Pathways
Deep Cyclic Inhibition of Cancer Signaling Pathways Challenges the Prevailing Chronic Ablation Approach
Each of the programs in our pipeline of Deep Cyclic Inhibitors is designed to drive cyclical disruption of abnormal activation of the MAPK signaling pathway or other relevant core signaling pathways outside the MAPK pathway, with the goal of maximizing antitumor therapeutic effects while limiting drug-related toxicity and adaptive resistance.
Table of Contents
Traditional targeted oncology drug development generally seeks to chronically sustain pathway inhibition, by prioritizing drugs with long to moderate half-lives and dosing them at intervals that maintain a sufficient level of drug, even at trough, to maintain target occupancy. This prevailing chronic ablation approach can cause on-target drug-related toxicity and limit clinical durability as a result of extended drug holidays, treatment discontinuation, and/or adaptive resistance. By contrast, our differentiated approach, based on counterintuitive insights derived from our translational bioinformatics platform, is to design novel drugs with at least three key aims: (1) achieve a manyfold higher C Max , (2) display a short plasma drug half-life, and (3) endow drugs with the ability to block feedback loops that would otherwise be susceptible to pathway reactivation. This design aims to provide enhanced mechanistic control of the target of interest and break tumor addiction, to prevent tumors from indefinitely self-replicating, metastasizing and evading the host’s immune system, among other capabilities. By cyclically disrupting these core oncogenic signaling pathways in cancer cells (i.e., imposing normalized signaling dynamics), we believe we can create novel therapeutics that maximize therapeutic activity in broad patient populations while providing an improved tolerability profile and improved durability through reduced pressure stemming from adaptive resistance. We believe we are pioneers in this unique approach of therapeutically leveraging signaling dynamics against tumor addiction.
Atebimetinib ’s Deep Cyclic Inhibition of MEK is Designed to Improve Tolerability and Broaden Activity vs. Chronic Inhibition of MEK
Our Wholly-Owned Deep Cyclic Inhibitor Pipeline
Our Deep Cyclic Inhibitor programs target clinically validated pathways while seeking to improve patient outcomes across a wide range of solid tumor types through our differentiated programs. Our current pipeline of product candidates and discovery programs is depicted below.
Table of Contents
Our Lead Clinical Program: Atebimetinib (IMM-1-104)
Our lead product candidate, atebimetinib, is an oral, once-daily Deep Cyclic Inhibitor of MEK, designed to improve durability and tolerability across many cancer indications, including MAPK pathway-driven tumors such as pancreatic cancer. A tebimetinib is designed to achieve a unique pharmacokinetic ("PK") profile: it aims for a manyfold higher C Max to provide stronger inhibition of the MAPK pathway than has been observed with first and second generation MEK inhibitors, followed by a complete release of the MAPK pathway through a near-zero drug trough. We believe this deep cyclic inhibition may enable broad activity with improved tolerability and limit the development of adaptive resistance.
Atebimetinib was observed to bind to MEK and acts as a highly selective inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase ("ERK") activation (i.e., phosphorylation), with a “Dual MEK” function that is designed to block the CRAF-bypass feedback to prevent MAPK pathway reactivation. A tebimetinib is designed with a short plasma half-life that reduces sustained pathway inhibition (as depicted above). A tebimetinib is also designed to prevent RAF-mediated activation of MEK, such as CRAF-bypass, by engagement of the RAF activation loop on MEK, and at elevated levels further disrupt the kinase suppressor of RAS 1 and 2 ("KSR"). We believe this innovative method of pathway inhibition has the ability to normalize cancer cell signaling dynamics and limits unnecessary harm to normal healthy cells. Collectively, we believe these qualities differentiate atebimetinib from other treatment options for RAS or RAF mutant and other MAPK-addicted tumors, as well as from known MEK inhibitors, by potentially enabling a tebimetinib to reduce drug resistance while improving tolerability.
Table of Contents
In preclinical studies, we observed that a tebimetinib inhibited MEK and ERK across a wide range of human and murine solid tumor models, including those with activating mutations in KRAS, NRAS, HRAS, and BRAF. In addition, in head-to-head preclinical studies, we evaluated a tebimetinib in murine-based KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutant solid tumor models representing lung, colon, pancreas, and skin cancer, and observed tumor stasis or regression with insignificant body weight loss ("BWL") when compared to certain FDA-approved MEK inhibitors at reported human dose equivalent dose and schedules. Given the data observed in these preclinical studies, we believe that a tebimetinib has the potential to deliver clinical benefit for patients across many cancer indications, including MAPK pathway-driven tumors such as pancreatic cancer. who currently have limited treatment options.
In November 2022, we commenced dosing in our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial for a tebimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. The ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, PK, pharmacodynamic ("PD"), and preliminary anti-tumor activity of a tebimetinib, alone or in combination with other agents.
In February 2024, July 2024 and December 2024, respectively, we announced that the FDA granted Fast Track designation for a tebimetinib for the treatment of patients: with PDAC who have failed one line of treatment; with PDAC in the first-line setting; and with unresectable or metastatic NRAS-mutant melanoma who have progressed on or are intolerant to PD-1/PD-L1 based immune checkpoint inhibitors .
In October 2024, we announced that the FDA granted orphan drug designation for atebimetinib for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.
In January 2025, we announced positive interim response and safety data from multiple Phase 2a pancreatic cancer arms of our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial of atebimetnib, including:
• Atebimetinib in combination with modified FOLFIRINOX ("mFFX") : as of January 6, 2025, of the six evaluable patients in the ongoing Phase 2a arm evaluating atebimetinib with mFFX in first-line pancreatic cancer, three patients achieved a partial response (one unconfirmed) and three patients achieved stable disease, collectively representing an interim 50% (3/6) overall response rate ("ORR"), in each case as measured by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors ("RECIST"). The three patients that achieved partial responses, and one of the patients that achieved stable disease, remained on treatment as of the cutoff date. We also announced that, as of January 6, 2025, atebimetinib in combination with mFFX was observed to be generally well tolerated.
• Atebimetinib Monotherapy : as of December 5, 2024, of the twenty-one evaluable patients in the ongoing Phase 2a arm evaluating atebimetinib monotherapy in second-line pancreatic cancer, eleven patients achieved disease control, including one patient that achieved a partial response with a sixty-seven percent (67%) target lesion reduction, in each case as measured by RECIST. The patient that achieved the forementioned partial response, and eight of the patients that achieved stable disease, remained on treatment as of the cutoff date. We also announced that, as of December 5, 2024, atebimetinib monotherapy was observed to be very well tolerated. As of December 5, 2024, treatment-related adverse events ("TRAEs") observed in ten-percent (10%) or greater of evaluable patients dosed with atebimetinib at 320mg (n=21) were mostly Grade 1 events, with some Grade 2 events observed, including for: Rash (1 patient or 5%), Diarrhea (2 patients or 10%), Fatigue (1 patient or 5%) and Blurred Vision (1 patient or 5%); no Grade 3, Grade 4 or Grade 5 TRAEs were observed in this subset of the patient population.
Table of Contents
In February 2025, we announced entry into a clinical supply agreement with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals for its anti-PD-1 therapy, Libtayo® (cemiplimab), which intends to support the evaluation of atebimetinib in combination with Libtayo in a planned clinical trial of patients with unresectable or metastatic RAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. We expect to dose the first patient in this planned clinical trial in the second half of 2026.
In June 2025 and again in September 2025, we announced positive interim response and safety data from our ongoing Phase 2a clinical trial arm evaluating atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer patients.
In August 2025, we announced a clinical supply agreement with Eli Lilly and Company for its second-generation KRAS G12C inhibitor, olomorasib (LY3537982), which intends to support the evaluation of atebimetinib in combination with olomorasib in a planned clinical trial of patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C-mutant non-small cell lung cancer who have progressed on prior therapy.
In January 2026, we announced further updated positive interim data from our ongoing Phase 2a clinical trial arm evaluating atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. As of a cutoff date of December 15, 2025 (the “Cutoff Date”), 64% overall survival (“OS”) at 12 months (with median follow-up time of 13.4 months) was observed in the initial intent-to-treat population of 34 patients dosed at the 320 mg once-daily dose level of atebimetinib in combination with mGnP (the “320 mg ITT Population”). The standard of care (described below) reported a 35% OS at twelve months. As of the Cutoff Date, the median OS of the 320 mg ITT Population had not been reached and the median progression free survival ("PFS") was 8.5 months. Also as of the Cutoff Date, 94% OS and 83% OS were observed in the 320 mg ITT Population at six months and at nine months, respectively. The standard of care (described below) reported a 67% OS at six months; estimates of standard of care (described below) suggest a ~47% OS at nine months. As of the Cutoff Date, atebimetinib in combination with mGnP continued to be generally well tolerated. As of the Cutoff Date, Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) observed in 10% or greater of patients in the 320 mg ITT Population consisted of Anemia (six patients or 18%) and Neutropenia (six patients or 18%). Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs observed in less than 10% of patients in the 320 mg ITT Population included Fatigue (6%), Leukopenia (3%), Vomiting (3%), Febrile Neutropenia (3%), Hypokalemia (3%) and Nausea (3%). No Grade 5 TEAEs were observed in this patient population and no new safety signals were identified.
The estimates of (and other references to) standard of care set forth above with respect to the six month and twelve month follow-up data were reported out directly from the publicly available third-party MPACT pivotal trial data for gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. The estimates of (and other references to) standard of care set forth above with respect to the nine month follow-up data were extrapolated and reconstructed by us based on the publicly available third-party MPACT pivotal trial data for gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Our Phase 1/2a clinical trial of atebimetinib does not include a head-to-head comparison against any other agents, and caution should be exercised when comparing data across trials.
We are currently in the process of initiating a Phase 3 clinical trial of atebimetinib, which we call the MAPKeeper 301 trial, to evaluate atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. MAPKeeper 301 is designed as a global Phase 3 registrational trial that will evaluate atebimetinib (320 mg QD) in comb ination with mGnP, compared to standard of care GnP alone, in first-line metastatic PDAC. The primary endpoint of MAPKeeper 301 is OS, and secondary endpoints include PFS, ORR, disease control rate, and quality of life measurements. We plan to enroll a total of approximately 510 patients in MAPKeeper 301, divided equally across the two arms. We expect to dose the first patient in the MAPKeeper 301 trial in mid-2026.
Additionally, we expect the other following near-term milestones related to atebimetinib: presenting further updated circulating tumor DNA data on acquired alterations from cancer patients treated with atebimetinib at a major scientific meeting, in the second quarter of 2026; announcing further updated survival data from over 50 first-line pancreatic cancer patients treated with atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial, in the first half of 2026; and dosing the first patient in a planned clinical trial of atebimetinib in combination with Libtayo in non-small cell lung cancer patients, in the second half of 2026.
Our Second Clinical Stage Program: Envometinib (IMM-6-415)
Our second program is focused on developing innovative allosteric MEK inhibitors that drive deep cyclic inhibition of the MAPK pathway, designed with unique drug-like properties including a shorter plasma half-life for an accelerated pharmacokinetic cadence dosed twice-daily in humans. Our product candidate for this program is designated as envometinib, and is designed to target MEK in a way that disrupts the MAPK pathway at ERK through reduction of MEK activation. We designed envometinib to have a unique PK and PD profile that may be optimized for distinct solid tumors, potentially including a broad range of MAPK-driven tumors as a monotherapy, as well as for a variety of combination approaches.
Table of Contents
I n March 2024, we commenced dosing in a Phase 1/2a clinical trial of envometinib for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors harboring RAF or RAS mutations. The Phase 1/2a clinical trial was designed to assess the safety, tolerability, PK, PD, and preliminary anti-tumor activity of envometinib. The Phase 1 portion of the clinical trial included dose escalation and dose exploration for envometinib, using a Bayesian modified toxicity probability interval ("mTPI-2") statistical design to establish an optimized recommended Phase 2 dose ("RP2D") in solid tumor patients with evidence of any RAF or RAS mutation. The Phase 2a portion included evaluating envometinib in multiple dose expansion arms at the candidate RP2D.
In January 2025, we announced initial interim PK, PD and safety data from the monotherapy Phase 1 portion of the envometinib clinical trial. As of December 23, 2024, seventeen patients dosed orally with envometinib twice daily were evaluable for PK and PD analyses (as depicted in the image below). Of these patients, the Company dosed three patients at 40 mg (the first dose level), three patients at 80 mg (the second dose level), three patients at 120 mg (the third dose level), and eight patients at 160 mg (the fourth dose level). The majority of patients dosed at the second, third and fourth dose levels achieved significant PK Cmax levels, which is the plasma concentration of therapy in a specific area of the body, with envometinib of over 1,000 ng/mL or approximately 100 nM drug free-fraction. In addition, up to 72%, 76% and 77% PD inhibition of phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase ("pERK") was observed, as compared to pre-treatment baseline for patients dosed with envometinib at the second, third and fourth dose levels, respectively. The majority of patients dosed at the first, second and third dose levels showed a return to favorably low PK Ctrough levels, with envometinib of less than approximately 200 ng/mL or approximately 20 nM drug free-fraction. We also announced that, as of December 23, 2024, envometinib monotherapy was observed to be generally well tolerated at all tested dose levels, with no dose limiting toxicities or serious adverse events observed.
Envometinib Phase 1: Monotherapy PK/PD Summary Analyses as of December 23, 2024:
In February 2025, we paused further patient enrollment in the envometinib Phase 1/2a clinical trial in order to evaluate the data from patients being treated at the 120 mg dose level and determine next steps for the program. In April 2025, we made the strategic decision to pause further internal advancement of envometinib and focus resources on our lead product candidate atebimetinib. We are pursuing partnership opportunities and considering other potential developmental paths for envometinib.
Additional Deep Cyclic Inhibitor Discovery Research Programs
We are leveraging our platform to continue expanding our Deep Cyclic Inhibitor pipeline by targeting core signaling pathways outside the MAPK pathway, representing critical tumor-addicted pathways in novel ways. We also continue to evaluate and prioritize our pipeline, including our earlier stage discovery pipeline. We currently have multiple additional programs at various stages of drug discovery focused on targeting these pathways through novel pharmacological approaches.
Table of Contents
Our Team
We were founded in 2008 by our Chief Executive Officer and President, Benjamin J. Zeskind, Ph.D., and Robert J. Carpenter, a current member of our Board of Directors (the "Board") and its former Chairperson, with the goal of leveraging translational bioinformatics to generate insights into the mechanisms that cause certain patients to respond to specific medicines across multiple therapeutic areas, and then seeking to make responses happen in a much broader population of patients. Our multi-disciplinary research and development ("R&D") team is led by our Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Brett Hall, who was the translational lead for Sylvant® (siltuximab) and Imbruvica® (ibrutinib) throughout clinical development. Our clinical team is led by our Chief Medical Officer, Igor Matushansky, M.D., Ph.D., who has extensive oncology drug development expertise, including overseeing the completion of NAPOLI-3 leading to the approval of NALIRIFOX for first-line pancreatic cancer, and decades of experience in the clinical treatment of cancer patients. Our leadership team brings together expertise across translational bioinformatics, preclinical and clinical development, and pharmaceutical business operations in oncology and includes individuals with extensive experience at some of the leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Ipsen Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis and Immunomedics (acquired by Gilead Sciences).
Our History
Our company is built on more than a decade of experience in translational bioinformatics. Since our founding in 2008, we have utilized this experience to generate insights into the mechanisms that cause certain patients to respond to specific medicines across therapeutic areas, and then sought to apply these insights to create medicines aimed at larger groups of patients. Our prior computational biology services business, which we have since ceased, helped us to better understand how translational bioinformatics can contribute to each stage of drug development, from early drug discovery to clinical development and through commercialization. However, we recognized the limitations of applying translational bioinformatics in isolation to specific stages of the drug development process and realized that bioinformatics could be even more helpful if applied continuously throughout the drug development process. Over time, we have developed a proprietary technology platform to facilitate that process and, in early 2018, we began applying the extensive counterintuitive insights from and capabilities of our platform and approach to create a wholly owned pipeline of novel small molecule drug programs, initially focusing on oncology.
Our Strategy
We are a late-stage clinical oncology company focused on keeping cancer patients alive and helping them thrive . We are developing and seeking to commercialize an entirely new category of anti-cancer medicines, Deep Cyclic Inhibitors, which we believe have the potential to be more effective and better tolerated therapies. Our platform is designed to leverage human biological data to generate insights that are not constrained by the inherent limitations of conventional approaches or prevailing scientific views. To achieve our mission, we are executing a near-term strategy with the following key elements:
• Apply Our Deep Expertise of the MAPK Pathway to Develop Novel Therapies that Achieve Durable Outcomes and Improve Quality of Life Across a Range of Cancers. We believe that our lead product candidate, atebimetinib, has the potential to treat broad populations of solid tumor patients, specifically those with inappropriate activation of the MAPK pathway. A tebimetinib has been specifically designed to provide Deep Cyclic Inhibition of the MAPK pathway at the level of MEK, with a once-daily oral dosing cadence. A tebimetinib was designed to overcome MAPK-feedback loops and to have an intentionally short plasma half-life, with the goal of providing Deep Cyclic Inhibition. Collectively, we believe a tebimetinib has potential as both a monotherapy and in combination with other therapeutic agents to provide broader therapeutic activity and an improved tolerability profile relative to known MEK inhibitors, and that atebimetinib has the potential to target patients with solid tumors driven by any mutation in KRAS, NRAS, HRAS, or BRAF .
• Advance Atebimetinib Through Late-stage Clinical Development for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer. We are evaluating a tebimetinib in an ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors, including those harboring RAS or RAF mutations, and in the process of initiating our MAPKeeper 301 Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. We expect to dose the first patient in the MAPKeeper 301 trial in mid-2026.
• Advance Atebimetinib through clinical development for lung cancer and other tumor types . I n the second half of 2026, we expect to dose the first patient in a planned clinical trial of atebimetinib in combination with Libtayo® in non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Table of Contents
• Progress Our DCI Pipeline to IND-Enabling Studies . Other key programs in our DCI pipeline leverage our deep understanding of core cancer signaling pathways, and are grounded in translational bioinformatics and signaling dynamics. We also actively apply our platform to other relevant pathways as new opportunities arise that may strengthen our pipeline.
• Continue to Expand and Advance Our Platform and Portfolio of Product Candidates . We have built a late-stage clinical oncology company that fully integrates bioinformatics and translational planning across all aspects of our drug discovery and development activities. We currently utilize our bioinformatics platform for our drug discovery efforts in oncology. These efforts are translationally guided by our proprietary, human-aligned 3D tumor models, and as we advance our product candidates into and through the clinic, we plan to utilize data and insights from our bioinformatics platform and proprietary humanized 3D tumor models to not only guide future clinical development but to also provide key learnings back to our earlier stage programs. Lastly, we continue to iterate on our existing technology and processes, and develop new technologies for our platform, all aimed at creating the most efficient process for the development of product candidates that we believe have the potential to optimize both safety and efficacy in broad patient populations of cancer patients with high unmet medical needs.
Our Bioinformatics Approach
Leveraging our history in translational bioinformatics, we have built a late-stage clinical oncology company that incorporates our expertise into every step of our process to discover and develop novel product candidates. Our goal is to meaningfully improve patient outcomes as compared to drugs developed through traditional drug discovery approaches. Our product candidate atebimetinib is currently being evaluated in an ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial, and our planned Phase 3 clinical trial of atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer patients is expected to begin dosing in mid-2026. The rest of our programs are in earlier stages of development or discovery. We have expanded our team of experts, including drug discovery and clinical development experts, to develop a pipeline of product candidates by leveraging our translational bioinformatics expertise.
Cancer Overview
Cancer is the second most common cause of death wor ldwide with approximately 10 million deaths annually and an incidence of approximately 20 million new cases in 2022. Cancer is defined as a collection of diseases in which abnormal cells divide uncontrollably and can invade nearby and distant tissues. The uncontrollable division of abnormal cells typically results in a malignant tumor (i.e., cancerous) or benign tumor (i.e., non-cancerous) . There are two main categories of cancer: hematologic (i.e., blood) cancers and solid tumor cancers. Hematologic cancers are cancers of the blood cells, and include leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Solid tumor cancers are cancers of any of the body’s other organs or tissues, including the pancreas, skin, lung and colon. Core tumor capabilities seen in cancer patients include the ability to indefinitely self-replicate, develop new blood vessels (i.e., angiogenesis), evade cell death (i.e., apoptosis), sustain self-sufficient growth, invade other tissues (i.e., metastasis), alter signaling pathways, evade immune system responses and modify metabolism. Tumor survival is dependent on certain of these capabilities (i.e., tumor addiction).
Table of Contents
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC)
Over 67,000 new cases of PDAC were diagnosed in the U.S., and over 51,000 deaths were reported, per the 2025 cancer census (Siegel 2025). While the 5-year OS for all patients with pancreatic cancer has improved from below 6% in the 20th century to above 10% in the 21st century, the 5-year OS of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer remains unchanged at just 3%.
Metastatic pancreatic cancer remains one of the most aggressive and highly lethal malignancies. Although it constitutes only about 3% of all cancers in the US, it is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women and is responsible for 8% of all cancer-related deaths for both men and women (Khalaf 2021, Siegel 2025).
MAPK Pathway and Beyond
In all cells, signaling pathways govern how cells regulate themselves as well as direct activities in relation to other cells in the body. One of the most commonly altered signaling pathways in cancer is the MAPK pathway, which consists of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling cascade. RAS is a family of related oncogenes found upstream in the MAPK pathway that codes for four highly related protein isoforms, HRAS, NRAS, KRAS4A and KRAS4B. In many solid tumors, the MAPK pathway is inappropriately activated, often through mutations in the key members of the pathway, including RAS. When RAS is switched “on” through the activation of the membrane-bound receptor tyrosine kinase ("RTK"), the MAPK pathway functions to drive cell proliferation, differentiation, survival and a variety of other cellular functions that are critical for the formation of tumors.
Through widespread adaptation of molecular profiling, we now recognize that up to one in two cancer patients harbor tumors which are inappropriately activated through the MAPK pathway. Many of these patients display tumors with activation mutations in RAS or RAF, which lie upstream of MEK and ERK. Because inappropriate activation of the MAPK pathway supports many of the core tumor capabilities described above, efforts to create new therapeutics to target this pathway have been a high priority in cancer drug research. However, to date nearly all therapeutics that target the MAPK pathway have been limited to narrow patient subpopulations and have struggled to balance tolerability, durability of response, and efficacy. Nearly all targeted therapeutics against the MAPK pathway have been designed for sustained pathway suppression, which has resulted in on-target drug-related toxicities that limit clinical durability and potential drug-drug combinations. Furthermore, sustained irreversible covalent inhibition of these pathways may lead to treatment resistance, as highlighted in a study in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med 2021; 384:2382-2393). The study focused on patients treated with adagrasib, an irreversible covalent inhibitor of KRAS G12C , and reported that 45% of patients (17 patients out of 38) in the study receiving adagrasib monotherapy developed resistance. Of these patients, many resistance mechanisms were observed involving non-G12C variations in KRAS, variations in NRAS or BRAF, or other resistance mechanisms related to the MAPK pathway. A second study published in Nature (November 10, 2021) evaluated 43 patients treated with sotorasib, an irreversible covalent inhibitor of KRAS G12C , and reported 27 patients with multiple treatment-emergent resistance alterations. Of these, 70% (19 out of 27) patients reported resistance mechanisms involving RAS/RAF mutations (Nature 2021; 599:679-683). A third study in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med 2023; 389:710-721) also described acquired alterations that may confer resistance to divarasib (another irreversible covalent inhibitor of KRAS G12C ) including many alterations in KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and other elements of the MAPK pathway.
Developing novel therapeutics to effectively, broadly and safely target this pathway may provide clinical benefit in large patient populations with significant unmet needs. In addition, although this pathway represents one of the most active areas in cancer drug discovery and development, targeted therapeutics that more effectively and safely normalize, but not chronically ablate, ERK signaling may uncouple drug activity and tolerability, while optimizing both. Our pipeline is designed to disrupt molecular pathways in a pulsatile way that undermines tumor addiction while limiting drug-related toxicity of normal healthy cells that are less reliant on a sustained high level of signaling along these pathways.
Table of Contents
Atebimetinib Design and Preclinical Overview
Background of MEK Inhibitors
Activating mutations of RAS and/or RAF in the MAPK pathway are observed in approximately 30% of all cancer patients, and inappropriate activation of this pathway is observed in up to 50% of all tumors and represents one of the most highly utilized signaling pathways in oncology. In aggressive solid tumors of the pancreas, skin, lungs and colon, mutations in RAS and/or RAF are even more common. For example, approximately 40% of lung cancers and approximately 90% of pancreatic cancers are due to RAS and/or RAF mutations. In turn MEK, which is downstream in the cellular signaling cascade, represents a compelling area for treatment and has previously been validated as a therapeutic target. However, to date, FDA-approved MEK inhibitors have been ineffective at treating RAS mutant tumors when compared to BRAF mutant tumors because of a well-known mechanism of resistance, CRAF-mediated MEK reactivation, also known as CRAF-bypass. In addition, a well-known limitation of current FDA approved MEK inhibitors are high rates of serious drug-related adverse events ("SAE’s"), often observed in over 50% of treated patients, which leads to drug intolerability. The longer half-life of these drugs (e.g., up to 2 to 4 days) with once per day or less frequent dosing, or moderate half-life (e.g., 3 to 6 hours) with increased dosing frequency, contributes to high rates of adverse events because typically these drugs chronically and systemically circulate for an extended period of time and harm healthy normal cells, which also rely on the MAPK pathway for functionality and survival. Our goal in developing atebimetinib is to address these shortcomings and potentially provide patients with better outcomes, improved tolerability, durability and expanded drug-drug combination opportunities (as depicted below).
Our Solution: A tebimetinib
Table of Contents
We have leveraged our platform to develop our lead product candidate atebimetinib , which is designed to be a highly selective dual-MEK inhibitor and to promote additional scaffold-related disruption of KSR at elevated drug levels. We are currently developing atebimetinib as a potential treatment for patients with cancer, including pancreatic and non-small cell lung cancer ("NSCLC") caused by mutations of RAS or RAF. In order to overcome MAPK-feedback and CRAF-mediated MEK activation, a well-known limitation of some current FDA-approved MEK inhibitors, we developed atebimetinib to allosterically inhibit MEK by targeting the site lying adjacent to the binding pocket of adenosine triphosphate ("ATP"), which would result in downstream inhibition of ERK. In addition, unlike some current FDA-approved MEK inhibitors, atebimetinib is designed to prevent MEK activation through a unique target engagement to prevent RAF or KSR-mediated activation of MEK. We believe that bypassing pathway reactivating drug resistance mechanisms would provide for better patient outcomes by enhancing therapeutic activity throughout the course of treatment. By reducing or eliminating steady state drug trough levels, we also designed atebimetinib to limit or reduce high rates of serious drug-related adverse events that have been observed in current FDA-approved MEK inhibitors (e.g., which can range from 45% to 69%), most often given in combination with a RAF inhibitor, which contributes to discontinuation rates of up to 10% to 15%.
With a goal of improving tolerability, we designed atebimetinib to have a short plasma half-life, to result in a near-zero steady state drug trough concentration to enable deep, cyclic inhibition of the MAPK pathway. We believe this method of drug cadence-driven pathway inhibition has the potential to normalize cancer cell signaling dynamics and prevent further damage to normal healthy cells. Collectively, we believe these dosing attributes may differentiate atebimetinib from known MEK inhibitors by potentially allowing atebimetinib to reduce drug resistance while improving tolerability due to its design to allosterically inhibit MEK, be uniquely resistant to MAPK pathway reactivation and to enable deep, cyclic inhibition stemming from a short plasma half-life.
Preclinical Studies: Overview of A tebimetinib
In multiple preclinical studies, we observed that atebimetinib inhibited activation of MEK (i.e., pMEK) as well as activation of ERK (i.e., pERK) across a wide range of murine and humanized 3D solid tumor models, including those with MAPK pathway activating mutations in KRAS, NRAS, HRAS and BRAF. In addition, in head-to-head preclinical studies, we evaluated atebimetinib in murine-based KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutant solid tumor models representing lung (i.e., A549), colon (i.e., Colon-26), pancreas (i.e., MIA PaCa-2. CAPAN-2) and skin cancer (i.e., A375 and SK-MEL-2), and observed superior antitumor activity with insignificant BWL when compared to certain FDA-approved MEK inhibitors and superior or non-inferior antitumor activity when compared to certain FDA-approved KRAS-G12C and BRAF inhibitors, at reported human dose equivalent dose and schedules. Given the data observed in our previously conducted preclinical studies, we believe that atebimetinib has the potential to deliver clinical benefit as monotherapy and in select drug combinations for patients with RAS or RAF mutant solid tumors who currently have limited treatment options.
Preclinical Studies: Maximum Tolerated Dose and Therapeutic Effect Data
In our early maximum tolerated dose ("MTD") studies, we observed that oral administration of atebimetinib twice a day of up to 150 mg/kg/dose was well-tolerated in mice. In other preclinical studies, we observed that the maximum therapeutic effect of atebimetinib was reached when administered orally twice a day between 100 and 150 mg/kg/dose. These dosing studies provided the basis of atebimetinib ’s dosing schedule in subsequent preclinical studies.
Table of Contents
Preclinical Studies: Pharmacogenomics Data
In a pharmacogenomics study utilizing a colorectal KRAS G12D tumor model in BALB/c mice, we evaluated downstream ERK inhibition of the MAPK pathway after atebimetinib treatment. We orally administered vehicle, selumetinib and atebimetinib twice a day at 100 mg/kg/dose, then harvested the tumors after 18 days of chronic treatment at 2 and 12 hours following the last drug dose to evaluate RNAseq changes. The tumors were collected across distinct BALB/c mice and RNAseq changes were evaluated using statistical analysis software. Consistent with atebimetinib ’s designed short plasma half-life, we observed deep, cyclic inhibition of most of the top genes in the ERK transcriptome, as noted by the differences of the dark and light blue bars in the figure below, which we believe suggests the potential for improved tolerability by allowing healthy normal cells to regenerate before the next dose is administered. For example, Erg1 and Spry4 were both downregulated over 16-fold at 2 hours after receiving the first dose on day 18 of the study, and at 12 hours after the first dose, which was prior to the second dose, both genes were approaching their baseline state when compared to vehicle treated tumors (as depicted below). In contrast to atebimetinib , we did not observe deep cyclic inhibition by selumetinib, but rather observed sustained MAPK pathway suppression versus vehicle groups between the two timepoints on day 18 (as depicted below). The top 20 genes were a subset of a 52-gene signature for ERK signaling.
Head-to-Head Comparison of A tebimetinib Against Selumetinib Using a Colon-26 Syngeneic Tumor Model: Deep Cyclic Inhibition of the ERK Transcriptome Observed
* Adjusted p-value < 0.05, for each treatment versus vehicle (n = 3-4 independent tumors per group)
Table of Contents
Preclinical Studies: Resistance to CRAF-bypass Observed
We evaluated atebimetinib head-to-head against four FDA-approved MEK inhibitors for CRAF-bypass resistance in a KRAS mutant NSCLC tumor model. We exposed the tumor cells with 100 nM of each drug for 2 hours and evaluated MEK and ERK activation levels. We observed that atebimetinib reduced overall activity of the MAPK pathway at ERK and pathway reactivation at MEK through a decrease in MEK and ERK activation, resulting in CRAF-bypass resistance. In contrast, we observed that all four FDA-approved MEK inhibitors displayed an increase in activated MEK, resulting in CRAF-bypass (as depicted below).
Head-to-Head Comparison of A tebimetinib against Four FDA-Approved MEK Inhibitors Using a A549 Xenograft Tumor Model: Prevented Downstream Activation of ERK (↓ pERK) and Inhibited Activation of MEK (↓ pMEK)
We evaluated atebimetinib head-to-head against binimetinib monotherapy and in combination with encorafenib in the KRAS G12S human NSCLC xenograft tumor model (i.e., A549). When comparing atebimetinib to binimetinib monotherapy, we observed that atebimetinib had greater tumor growth inhibition (as depicted below). The observations of atebimetinib head-to-head against binimetinib alone and in combination with encorafenib, which was not considered relevant for a KRAS mutant, RAF wild-type tumor model, has been included in the figure below for comparison purposes.
Head-to-Head Comparison of A tebimetinib Against Binimetinib +/- Encorafenib Using a A549 Xenograft Tumor Model: Tumor Volume
Table of Contents
We also evaluated atebimetinib head-to-head against binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy and the combination of binimetinib with encorafenib in a BRAF V600E human melanoma xenograft model. It should be noted that the administered combination of binimetinib and encorafenib for BRAF mutant melanoma, such as BRAF V600E/K , is an FDA-approved combination. As expected, when comparing atebimetinib alone to binimetinib in combination with encorafenib, we observed that the combination therapy had greater tumor growth inhibition (as depicted below). However, when we compared atebimetinib to binimetinib monotherapy, we observed that atebimetinib had greater tumor growth inhibition (as depicted below). In addition to the monotherapy potential for RAS mutant disease, we believe the greater single agent MEK inhibitor activity observed with our deep cyclic inhibition approach demonstrates the potential of atebimetinib (and/or envometinib, which has an accelerated cadence of deep cyclic inhibition) in drug-drug combinations with other MAPK pathway inhibitors, such as encorafenib, to treat RAF mutant cancers, such as BRAF V600E/K , among other MAPK pathway mutations.
Head-to-Head Comparison of A tebimetinib Against Binimetinib +/- Encorafenib Using a A375 Xenograft Tumor Model: Tumor Volume
In a further in vivo study based on humanized 3D tumor model data, we evaluated atebimetinib head-to-head against sotorasib (AMG-510) and gemcitabine alone, and atebimetinib in combination with sotorasib, for 21 days in the KRAS G12C xenograft model (i.e., MIA PaCa-2). In a previous study conducted by a third-party, sotorasib demonstrated sensitivity to this pancreatic tumor model. Comparing atebimetinib alone, against sotorasib and in combination with sotorasib, we observed tumor regressions with insignificant median BWL (i.e., within 3% of baseline), which we believe indicates activity, durability and tolerability of atebimetinib against a KRAS G12C mutant pancreatic cancer model (as depicted below).
Preclinical Studies: 3D Tumor Growth Models
3D tumor growth models mimic the tumor microenvironment ("TME") more closely than 2D culture models, and we believe humanized 3D models more accurately reflect human tumor biology and complexity when translating pharmacological data of MAPK pathway inhibition in vivo . We have established and evaluated over 190 humanized 3D tumor models, a majority of which display activating mutations in the RAS isoforms, amongst other altered MAPK pathway targets, including BRAF, CRAF, NF1 and ERK, to evaluate their sensitivities to atebimetinib . In general, we observed that tumor models with KRAS or NRAS mutations and certain molecular profiles were sensitive to atebimetinib , including tumor models displaying BRAF mutations. For example, atebimetinib 0 dose-response values in 3D assays as low as 23.7 nM were observed in tumor models that expressed NRAS mutants such as Q61L, Q61R, G12D, Q61K, among others. Similarly, KRAS mutant tumor models were sensitive to atebimetinib treatment, with IC 50 dose responses as low as 66.7 nM when displaying mutations including Q61H, G12C, G12V, G13D, G12D, G12R, among others. Certain tumor models with BRAF mutations were also found to be sensitive to atebimetinib with IC 50 dose responses in 3D assays as low as 54.2 nM for V600E (class 1) and G464E (class 2) mutations. A clear driver mutation in RAS or RAF was generally predictive of atebimetinib response, but a smaller number of RAS or RAF mutant models displaying certain oncogenic mutation profiles were found to be insensitive to atebimetinib and displayed IC 50 dose response values of over 10,000 nM.
We observed that atebimetinib displays broad activity with additional responses in MAPK pathway addicted tumors.
Table of Contents
Envometinib (IMM-6-415) Design and Preclinical Overview
Our second program is focused on developing innovative allosteric MEK inhibitors that drive deep cyclic inhibition of the MAPK pathway, designed with unique drug-like properties including a shorter plasma half-life for an accelerated pharmacokinetic cadence dosed twice-daily in humans. Our product candidate for this program is designated as envometinib (IMM-6-415). Envometinib is designed to target MEK in a way that disrupts the MAPK pathway at ERK through reduction of MEK activation. We designed envometinib to have a unique PK and PD profile that may be optimized for distinct solid tumors, potentially including a broad range of MAPK-driven tumors as a monotherapy, as well as for a variety of combination therapy approaches. We evaluated envometinib in a Phase 1/2a clinical trial for the potential treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors. In April 2025, we made the strategic decision to pause further internal advancement of envometinib and focus resources on our lead product candidate atebimetinib. We are pursuing partnership opportunities and considering other potential developmental paths for envometinib.
Preclinical Studies: Overview of Envometinib
In November 2022, in a scientific poster presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Annual Meeting, we presented preclinical data demonstrating that envometinib inhibited the growth of RAF and RAS mutant tumors as a monotherapy across multiple human and murine solid tumor models and could be administered in combination with select immune modulators (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors) for the treatment of certain solid tumors, which are often poorly immunologically accessible.
In October 2023, we presented preclinical data at the AACR-NCI-EORTC Conference in which envometinib in combination with encorafenib demonstrated better tumor growth inhibition and improved durability when compared head-to-head with binimetinib plus encorafenib in animal models of RAF mutant melanoma and colorectal cancer, and envometinib as a single agent demonstrated high sensitivity in a wide range of MAPK-driven tumor types, including models of RAS or RAF mutant disease.
Preclinical Studies: Maximum Tolerated Dose and Therapeutic Effect Data
In our early MTD studies, we observed that oral administration of envometinib twice a day of up to 175 to 180 mg/kg/dose was well-tolerated in mice (middle and right panels in figure above). In other preclinical studies, we observed that the maximum therapeutic effect of envometinib was reached when administered orally twice a day between 150 and 180 mg/kg/dose. These dosing studies provided the basis of envometinib’s dosing schedule in subsequent preclinical studies (as depicted in figures below).
Preclinical Studies: Tumor Regression and Body Weight Loss Data
We evaluated envometinib against vehicle and historic responses from atebimetinib in an aggressive murine colorectal tumor model (i.e., Colon-26), which expresses mutant KRAS G12D . We observed that envometinib demonstrated robust tumor growth inhibition at top effective doses of 150 and 175 mg/kg BID p.o., with multiple mice experiencing tumor regression during the first 7 days of dosing (as depicted below), with good tolerability, and evidenced limited (-8.61% to +3.34% vs. vehicle group) changes in median BWL at doses in the range of 25 to 175 mg/kg BID p.o. While envometinib displayed a plasma half-life in mice of only a 0.3 to 0.4 hours (0.5 to 0.7 in non-human primates), envometinib led to comparable tumor growth inhibition of that observed with atebimetinib , a molecule that has been observed to have a 1.3 hour half-life in mice (i.e., 3 to 4 times longer than envometinib in the same species), which was previously observed to be superior in a head-to-head comparison against binimetinib and selumetinib in the same model.
Table of Contents
Evaluation of Envometinib as Compared to Vehicle Using a Colon 26 Syngeneic Rodent Tumor Model: Tumor Volume
Colon 26 (KRAS G12D ) syngeneic colorectal tumor model in immune competent BALB/c mice. Tumor Growth Inhibition (TGI) % = [1 – (Ti – T0)/(Ci – C0)]x100%; Maximum Antitumor Effective Dose Range for Envometinib in mice is 150 mg/kg to 175-180 mg/kg BID p.o.
In a further in vivo study based on the positive and negative impact of MAPK pathway activation in antitumor responses, we evaluated envometinib head-to-head against PD1 and CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors alone, and envometinib in combination with each, for 28 days in the KRAS G12D mutant syngeneic tumor model (i.e., CT-26). Historically, this KRAS mutant colorectal tumor mouse model has demonstrated greater sensitivity to CTLA4 over PD1/PDL1 checkpoint inhibition. Comparing envometinib alone at moderated doses below the maximum cytoreductive levels described above, against anti-PD-1 or anti-CTLA4 treatments and in each combination with envometinib (e.g., QD, BID at multiple dose levels), we observed superior survival through 28 days with insignificant median BWL (i.e., median body weight gain observed in all groups), which we believe indicates the potential for activity, durability and tolerability of envometinib against a KRAS G12D mutant colorectal cancer model in immune competent rodents (as depicted below).
Head-to-Head Comparison of Envometinib +/- anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 Using a CT-26 Syngeneic Tumor Model: Probability of Survival Based on Tumor Volume Limits
CT-26 (KRAS G12D ) syngeneic colorectal tumor model in immune competent BALB/ c mice (note: monotherapy and combinations were inactive in athymic nude CT-26 model – data not shown).
Table of Contents
We also evaluated envometinib alone and in combination with encorafenib head-to-head against binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy and the combination of binimetinib with encorafenib in a BRAF V600E human melanoma xenograft model. It should be noted that the administered combination of binimetinib and encorafenib for BRAF mutant melanoma, such as BRAF V600E/K , is an FDA-approved combination. As expected, when comparing envometinib alone to binimetinib in combination with encorafenib, we observed that the combination therapy had greater tumor growth inhibition (as depicted below). However, when we compared envometinib to binimetinib monotherapy, we observed that envometinib had greater tumor growth inhibition (as depicted below). When we compared the MEKi plus BRAFi combinations of envometinib plus encorafenib head-to-head versus binimetinib plus encorafenib, the deep cyclic inhibition approach of MEKi with envometinib combinations proved superior to the binimetinib-containing combinations (as depicted below).
Head-to-Head Comparison of Envometinib +/- Encorafenib Against Binimetinib +/- Encorafenib Using a A375 Xenograft Tumor Model: Tumor Volume
Additional Early Discovery Drug Programs
In addition to the discovery programs described above, we are also pursuing drug discovery efforts towards undisclosed but validated oncology targets. We continue to periodically evaluate our drug discovery efforts and are focused on developing and advancing our early pipeline by addressing validated oncology targets in new ways that may better address unmet clinical needs. Our proprietary and we believe, innovative, platforms are central to our discovery and translational efforts, and we continue to prioritize and de-prioritize early discovery drug programs that demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) clear, targetable patterns of oncogenic addiction that are therapeutically responsive to deep, cyclic target inhibition. This approach ensures that we advance drug programs with potential for broad activity and improved overall tolerability.
Our Platform
Consistent with our approach of weaving bioinformatics and computational biology into every stage of the drug development process, we have developed a proprietary disease-agnostic platform that allows us to leverage human biological data to generate insights that are not constrained by the inherent limitations of conventional approaches or prevailing scientific views. We are developing novel product candidates that aim to optimize both safety and efficacy for diseases with high unmet medical needs and suboptimal treatment options. Key elements of our platform include:
• Insights from Human Data. Compare distinct groups of individuals who differ in a certain aspect of disease or response to a particular therapy, or identify new patient subsets.
• Novel Biology. Identify potential novel targets and new ways to drug existing targets including by using our Disease Cancelling Technology ("DCT") and/or our insights into mechanisms of response.
Table of Contents
• Novel Chemistry. Identify small molecules that selectively bind to a target of interest including by using our proprietary technology, and/or engineer PK to achieve optimal signaling dynamics.
• Proprietary Translational Planning. Use proprietary, humanized 3D preclinical models and bioinformatics to prioritize indications and identify sensitive subpopulations.
• Proprietary Clinical Data Analysis. We have developed proprietary software and methods to view, analyze, and interpret clinical data to inform decision-making, enhance translational studies, and inform future analyses.
Underlying each of these elements is our rigorous quality control and ability to analyze complex biological datasets. We are one of the few biopharmaceutical companies that has been involved in defining best practices for robustly analyzing bioinformatics data, as evidenced by co-authorship on journal articles together with regulators as well as writing invited reviews to educate the scientific community on this topic. This attention to rigorous quality control pervades all of our analyses, and we believe this enables us to extract meaningful information from a variety of databases of human data, including GENIE and The Cancer Genome Atlas Program ("TCGA").
Our platform is not limited to a single aspect or pathology; rather, it is disease-agnostic, which we believe enables us to identify, develop and evaluate product candidates across multiple disease areas simultaneously, with our current focus in oncology. While we currently have an emphasis on transcriptomic data, our platform is not limited to a single data type and thus we believe it will be able to evolve as new datasets emerge. Our platform enabled the initiation, discovery and development of our product candidates atebimetinib and envometinib, and has led us to identify additional potential product candidates with novel compositions of matter by leveraging our platform and drug discovery process. Moreover, our platform has previously been applied extensively in successful partnerships with large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and through our internal drug discovery and development.
Insights from Human Data
Our analyses often begin by comparing existing transcriptomic data from two groups of patients (e.g., from those whose tumors have metastasized versus those whose tumors have not) to help elucidate the biological mechanisms underlying a particular aspect of disease which we seek to counteract. As another example, we may analyze existing data from patients with differences in response to an existing therapy, in order to better understand what is happening in responders versus non-responders. We may also analyze existing data from patients with a disease to identify novel subsets of patients. Our platform has enabled us to conduct multiple projects that involve stratifying patients into novel subsets. We associate transcriptomic profiles with each subset, which can then be directly inputted into DCT to identify novel targets specific to a given patient subset.
Novel Biology
Disease Cancelling Technology
We have developed DCT to identify targets that reverse a disease signal across multiple relevant genes with the potential to yield product candidates with differentiated mechanisms that are less likely to be discovered by traditional drug discovery methods. Additional biologic context is derived from quantifying the extent to which different time points, concentrations and perturbations (e.g., inhibition and overexpression) may cancel a disease signal more effectively than existing drug targets. DCT ranks target perturbations by the extent to which they generate signals that counteract disease-associated gene expression changes observed in patient data. Thus, we believe DCT enables hypothesis-free, data-driven identification of novel targets and new ways to drug existing targets.
DCT leverages gene expression data derived from human patient samples to identify targets that may rescue abnormal gene expression and restore pathway homeostasis. In addition, DCT identifies biology relevant to attenuating a disease by quantifying the similarity of genome-wide signatures of specific aspects of the disease to signatures of target induced gene expression changes using a mathematical similarity metric. Uniquely, DCT quantifies the per-gene contribution to overall disease amplification or cancellation. An example of a typical analysis begins by running DCT to identify an unwanted, disease-specific gene expression pattern. The ideal input to DCT is focused on a specific aspect of a disease, such as tumors that have metastasized versus those that have not, rather than comparing diseased versus healthy states. DCT identifies target candidates by screening a disease differential expression signature and comparing it to thousands of target gene expression signatures.
Table of Contents
DCT is able to rapidly compare disease state signatures against vast numbers of target signatures. DCT ranks signatures resulting from the modulation of specific targets by the extent to which they oppose disease signatures (as depicted below). Unlike some algorithms or artificial intelligence ("AI") approaches, the results originating from DCT are designed to be interpretable from a computational and biological perspective. This platform uses gene expression from patient datasets and does not rely on literature. Together with the target, DCT provides a specific list of testable genes associated with the target of interest, relevant drug concentrations and temporal dynamic information driving the result. Thus, we believe DCT can identify new targets and readily detect dynamic relevant biology relating to modulating a target in a better way.
A summary workflow for DCT’s novel target identification can be described as follows:
• Carefully curated and quality-controlled human transcriptomic data representing a specific aspect of disease, or Input 1, is input and vectorized for processing (as depicted below).
• A carefully curated and quality-controlled library of gene expression signals associated with perturbing specific targets at specific time points and concentrations, or Input 2, is input and vectorized for processing (as depicted below). This library can potentially include clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats ("CRISPR"), RNA interference, tool compounds, screening library compounds and existing drugs.
• The strength of disease signal cancellation is measured between Input 1 and every target signature in Input 2.
Disease Cancelling Technology Summary Workflow for Target Identification
A second filtration step selects target candidates for which multiple biological pathways are restored in the proper direction compared to the disease signal. DCT includes a method to compute a per pathway contribution to disease canceling in terms of percent contribution to overall disease reversal for cases when a specific pathway is particularly relevant. DCT is designed to have many capabilities in addition to identifying novel targets or novel ways to drug existing targets. To enable rapid translation to experimental validation, DCT can suggest ideal concentrations, temporal dynamics and marker genes to monitor. DCT is also capable of predicting target combinations for a given disease or an ideal target for combination with an existing therapy. For expanded utility, DCT has a graphical user interface that enables our biologists to interact with, sort, modify, query and run results along with producing visualizations of results.
We believe DCT has several advantages over other target identification technologies. The platform uses patient data as a starting point, rather than artificial 2D in vitro models. We have presented data at American Association for Cancer Research and other conferences demonstrating how cell lines fail to capture the heterogeneity of patient tumors, and our discovery team’s experience in the 3D tumor modeling field has also highlighted the limitations of 2D in vitro data. Moreover, working closely with several FDA-approved drugs, we have found that transcriptomic data was most frequently and dynamically linked to drug activity. Thus, our core insights are derived from transcriptomic data (RNA), while some of our competitor’s platforms may focus on sequencing data (DNA), imaging data from phenotypic screens and/or literature.
Table of Contents
DCT is focused on identifying novel targets or novel ways to modulate existing targets, with the goal of generating novel therapeutics with improved clinical activity. We have not in-licensed external drugs and we do not focus on “drug repurposing” activities. Our pipeline is composed of programs with potentially novel pharmacological effects.
Biological Mechanisms of Response
We also identify novel biology by applying translational bioinformatics to analyze the biological mechanisms of response of existing therapies. This may include comparing the transcriptional profiles induced by a drug at different timepoints in order to highlight biological feedback loops that we then seek to counteract.
Signaling Dynamics (PK-Driven)
Transcriptomic data has proven critical to these analyses because it provides an understanding of the extent to which specific genes are expressed at any given time, capturing temporal changes in pathway activation. Signaling networks differ between cell types, and we leverage this to modulate targets in such a way that certain cell types will be more impacted than others. Our platform enables us to assess the signaling dynamics of product candidates, which we believe allows us to optimize the chemistry of our product candidate programs to achieve broad therapeutic activity against diseased cells while sparing healthy normal cells. Modulation of these signaling networks impacts cell fate decisions in many cell types, including cancerous cells. Our computational biology expertise enables us to analyze transcriptomic data that closely reflects spatiotemporal dynamics of biological signaling networks.
Proprietary Translational Planning
Humanized 3D Tumor Models .
In oncology, we are deeply experienced in advanced, humanized 3D-based tumor growth models, which based on peer reviewed research by members of our team and others, more accurately predict drug response in animal models, and we believe in patients, compared to standard models. Unlike in vitro approaches, the 3D tumor growth models reflect the complexity of tumor biology given their alignment with the TME. Thus, we believe our deep expertise in 3D tumor models enables us to more accurately stratify patients likely to benefit from our potential product candidates.
3D-TGA Background and Utility
Although two-dimensional ("2D") tissue culture has dominated cell-based preclinical oncology research for over 70 years, successful translation and regulatory approval of new oncology drugs are amongst the lowest of all therapeutic areas. Innovations in cell-based platform technologies, such as matrix-based humanized 3D Tumor Growth Assay ("3D-TGA") tumor models, offer the promise to enrich preclinical drug discovery and improve overall clinical translational success. Our company and leadership have a strong history in research and translation of drug response using patient-derived tumor models (e.g., patient-derived xenografts and 3D ex vivo models) and translational bioinformatics using public and internal patient data. Our team has built on previous ex vivo tumor modeling experience and patient-alignment model selection approaches to identify models that better reflect molecular profiles of target patient populations. We believe this effort will help improve translational success of our pipeline and help ensure that established 3D-TGA models perform well as a core platform for innovative oncology drug R&D. By leveraging over two decades of humanized modeling expertise, our translational and discovery teams have built, characterized, and interrogated a large set of 3D-TGA tumor models from commonly used human tumor cell lines (i.e., currently at over 130 tumor models). The cohort of 3D-TGA tumor models span at least 12 major tumor types, including: breast, colorectal, lung, pancreas, melanoma, ovary, liver, stomach, prostate, neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, and thyroid. Over time, additional 3D-TGA models may be developed to add new indications or expand existing indications to better test emerging discovery or translational hypotheses. A large, proprietary 3D-TGA collection ensures that new drug candidates, identified as active in one cohort, could be quickly tested for broader tumor activity in additional tumor types. The established collection of 3D-TGA tumor models can also be used to perform novel drug screens and develop novel chemical entities (NCE’s) that demonstrate drug activity.
Prioritize Indications and Identify Sensitive Subpopulations
We are able to leverage bioinformatics to analyze genomic data from large patient databases of primary tumor data to identify specific indications where first line patients are likely to have characteristics that align with our more reflective humanized models and identify biological mechanisms and biomarkers that enable us to identify subpopulations that are more likely to be sensitive based on their similarity to our translational approaches.
Table of Contents
Analyze Clinical Data
We have developed proprietary software that we believe enables us to view, analyze, and interpret clinical data in new and more robust ways.
Commercialization Plan
We intend to retain significant development and commercialization rights to our product candidates in major markets and, if marketing approval is obtained, to commercialize our product candidates on our own, or potentially in select regions with a partner. We currently have no sales, marketing or commercial product distribution capabilities. We intend to build the necessary infrastructure and capabilities over time for the United States, and potentially other regions, in connection with the advancement of our product candidates. Clinical data, addressable patient population, commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs, and the status of our pipeline, may, without limitation, all influence or alter our development and commercialization plans.
Competition
The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapid advancement of novel technologies, significant competition and a strong defense of intellectual property rights. While we believe that our proprietary platform and scientific expertise provides us with competitive advantages, we face competition from multiple sources, including larger and better-funded pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and, if approved, commercialize will compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key factors that would affect our ability to effectively compete with other therapeutics include, without limitation: safety, efficacy, ease of administration, pricing, brand recognition and availability of reimbursement and coverage by third party payors.
Our Oncology Programs
The current FDA-approved treatment options that target MAPK pathway cancers generally are either MEK inhibitors limited by their high rates of serious drug-related adverse events that result in drug intolerability and drug resistance through MAPK-feedback loops, or KRAS inhibitors limited to patients with specific KRAS mutations. We expect that our oncology programs targeting the MAPK pathway may compete with current FDA-approved therapies or clinical programs targeting RAS or RAF mutant tumors that are being advanced by certain pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
Intellectual Property
Our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our products and technology is fundamental to the long-term success of our business. We rely on a combination of intellectual property protection strategies, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, license agreements, confidentiality policies and procedures, non-disclosure agreements, invention assignment agreements and technical measures designed to protect the intellectual property and confidential information and data used in our business.
As of February 2, 2026, we had: three issued U.S. patents; nine issued patents outside the U.S.; nine pending U.S. patent applications; thirty-seven pending patent applications outside the U.S.; three U.S. provisional applications; and three Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT") applications that have not entered national stage. These patents and patent applications relate to various subject matter, including: our product candidate atebimetinib , our product candidate envometinib, and our DCT. Excluding any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees, as applicable, our owned issued U.S. patent and any patents that may issue from our owned pending U.S. patent applications are expected to expire between February 2039 and January 2046 any paten ts that may issue from our owned pending foreign patent applications are expected to expire between January 2041 and January 2046.
Table of Contents
With respect to atebimetinib , as of February 2, 2026, we had: one issued U.S. patent; ten issued patents outside the U.S.; three pending PCT applications; five pending U.S. patent applications; one U.S. provisional application; and sixteen pending patent applications outside the U.S. The issued claims in our issued U.S. patent are directed to protecting atebimetinib and related compounds. The issued claims in these patents outside the U.S. are directed to protecting atebimetinib , related compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of use. The pending U.S. patent applications, and these pending patent applications outside the U.S., include claims directed to compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of use. Any patent that may issue, based upon these pending applications related to atebimetinib , is expected to expire between January 2041 and September 2045, excluding any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees, as applicable.
With respect to envometinib, as of February 2, 2026, we had: two pending PCT applications; three pending U.S. patent applications; and twenty-one pending patent applications outside the U.S. Any patent that may issue based upon the pending PCT applications is expected to expire between November 2043 and January 2046, excluding any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees, as applicable.
With respect to DCT, as of February 2, 2026, we had: two issued U.S. patents. The issued claims of these U.S. patents are directed to methods (processes) and systems. Our issued U.S. patents related to our DCT are expected to expire in April 2039, excluding any possible patent term extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees, as applicable.
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. We cannot be sure that our pending patent applications that we have filed or may file in the future will result in issued patents, and we can give no assurance that any patents that have issued or might issue in the future will protect our current or future product candidates or (if approved) products, will provide us with any competitive advantage, and will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented.
In the United States, the patent term of a patent that claims an FDA-approved drug or biologic may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time that the drug or biologic is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug or biologic may be extended. Similar provisions are available in the EU and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug or biologic. In the future, if product candidates that we may develop receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions where applicable on patents covering those drugs. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our future issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available. However, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether these extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of these extensions.
We intend to pursue additional intellectual property protection to the extent we believe it would be beneficial and cost-effective. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using or commercializing any of our patented inventions will depend in part on our success in obtaining, defending and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions, and improvements. With respect to our intellectual property, we cannot provide any assurance that any of our current or future patent applications will result in the issuance of patents in any particular jurisdiction, or that any of our current or future issued patents will effectively protect any of our product candidates, products (if approved) or technology from infringement or prevent others from commercializing infringing products or technology.
Table of Contents
In addition to our reliance on patent protection for our inventions, product candidates, products (if approved), and technologies, we also seek to protect our brand through the procurement of trademark rights. As of February 2, 2026, we held certain trademark registrations and pending applications for trademark registration for the marks DEEP CYCLIC INHIBITION, FLUENCY, DISEASE CANCELLING and IMMUNEERING in the United States. Furthermore, we rely on trade secrets, know-how, unpatented technology and other proprietary information, to strengthen our competitive position. We have determined that certain technologies, including some of our software, are better protected as trade secrets. To mitigate the possibility of trade secret misappropriation, we typically enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to our trade secrets, such as our employees, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also typically enter into invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to assign to us any inventions they develop while working for us. We generally control access to our proprietary and confidential information through the use of internal and external controls that are subject to periodic review. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. As a result, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. For further discussion of the risks relating to intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
Government Regulation
Among others, the FDA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements upon companies involved in the preclinical and clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of potential drugs such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, approval, sales, commercialization, marketing, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our product candidates. Any product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in those foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in the European Union ("EU") are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.
U.S. Drug Development Process
In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA"), and its implementing regulations. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
• completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in accordance with FDA’s good laboratory practice requirements and other applicable regulations;
• submission to the FDA of an IND which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
• approval by an independent institutional review board ("IRB") or ethics committee at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;
• performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice ("GCP") requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;
• submission to the FDA of a NDA after completion of all pivotal trials;
• payment of user fees associated with an NDA;
• a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA to file the NDA for review;
• satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;
Table of Contents
• satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice ("cGMP") requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity, and of selected clinical investigation sites to assess compliance with GCPs;
• potential FDA audit of the preclinical and/or clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA; and
• FDA review and approval of the NDA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States.
Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, PK, pharmacology, and PD characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which (depending on its charter) may provide authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting, under certain timelines, of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries, specifically the clinicaltrials.gov website managed by the National Institutes of Health ("NIH").
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
• Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the initial safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product candidate in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. In the case of some product candidates for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, especially when the product candidate may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.
• Phase 2: The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages, dose tolerance and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks.
Table of Contents
• Phase 3: The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product candidate and to provide an adequate basis for regulatory approval.
Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval (if any). These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the approved indication. In certain instances, such as with accelerated approval drugs, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.
A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the FDA has promulgated regulations governing the acceptance of foreign clinical trials not conducted under an IND, establishing that such trials will be accepted as support for an IND or application for marketing approval if conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee ("IEC") and use of proper procedures for obtaining informed consent from subjects, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an on-site inspection if the FDA deems such inspection necessary. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical trials. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign trials are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND trials. If a marketing application is based solely on foreign clinical data, the FDA requires that the foreign data be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; the trials must have been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and the FDA must be able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means, if the FDA deems such an inspection to be necessary.
During the development process, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points are generally prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor to obtain the FDA’s feedback on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the product candidate.
Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final potential drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.
Table of Contents
U.S. Review and Approval Process
Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, including results from preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product candidate. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product candidate to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for product candidates designated as orphan drugs, unless the product application also includes a non-orphan indication.
The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product candidate’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (the "PDUFA") guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after it the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.
The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs.
After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional clinical trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.
If regulatory approval of a product candidate is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may contain limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ("REMS") to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.
Table of Contents
The Pediatric Research Equity Act (the "PREA") requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or the FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same approved indication or use within such rare disease or condition for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity within the relevant indication (i.e., greater safety, greater efficacy, or a major contribution to patient care) or inability to manufacture the product in sufficient quantities to meet the needs for the indication or use protected by orphan exclusivity. The designation of such drug also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication or use for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication or use for which the orphan product has exclusivity. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for a disease or condition broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs relating to the approved indication or use of patients with the applicable rare disease or condition.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
The FDA has a number of programs intended to expedite the development and/or review of product candidates that meet certain criteria. Sponsors may request that the FDA allow the use of one or more of these programs. For example, product candidates are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.
A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.
Table of Contents
Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with a fast track designation or breakthrough therapy designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. An NDA for a product candidate is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide significant improvement in treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.
In addition, depending on the design of the applicable clinical trials, a product candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug product candidates intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA generally requires that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled confirmatory clinical trials to verify and describe the anticipated clinical benefit. The FDA may withdraw accelerated approval if, among other things, the confirmatory study fails to verify clinical benefit; the applicant fails to perform required confirmatory studies with due diligence; postmarketing use demonstrates that postmarketing restrictions are inadequate to assure safe use; the applicant fails to adhere to agreed-upon postmarketing restrictions; promotional materials are false or misleading; or other evidence demonstrates that the product is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use. In addition, the FDA generally requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product candidate.
Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.
Post-approval Requirements
Drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.
The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
• restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
• fines, warning letters, or untitled letters;
• clinical holds on clinical studies;
Table of Contents
• refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;
• product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products;
• consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs;
• mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information;
• the issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases and other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; or
• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling.
Marketing Exclusivity
Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA") or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2) (a "505(b)(2) NDA"), submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.
The FDCA alternatively provides three years of non-patent exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
Pediatric exclusivity is another type of marketing exclusivity available in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity attached to another period of exclusivity, whether patent or non-patent, if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described clinical trials.
Government Regulation Outside of the United States
To market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries governing, among other things, pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, marketing authorization, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of drugs.
Table of Contents
Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product candidates in those countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
Non-Clinical Studies and Clinical Trials
Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in other jurisdictions, for example in the EU, are subject to significant regulatory controls.
Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of Good Laboratory Practice ("GLP") as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products, e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.
Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), Good Clinical Practice ("GCP") guidelines, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy and, in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide “no fault” compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.
The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation ("CTR"), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022, with a three-year transition period. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.
The CTR provides for a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single clinical trial application ("CTA") submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.
The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025, and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR.
Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with GMP. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.
Table of Contents
Marketing Authorization
In order to market our product candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. Specifically in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization ("MA"). To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a MA application ("MAA"). The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs.
• “Centralized MAs” are issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use ("CHMP") of the European Medicines Agency ("EMA"), and are valid throughout the EU. The centralized procedure is compulsory for certain types of medicinal products such as (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) designated orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products ("ATMPs") (such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products) and (iv) medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU. Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops.
• “National MAs” are issued by the competent authorities of the EU member states, only cover their respective territory, and are available for product candidates not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure described above. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in an EU member state, this national MA can be recognized in another member state through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any member state at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various member states through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the member states in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the reference member state. The timeframe to obtain national MAs varies depending on the concerned procedure. In order to grant the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EU member states make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.
Data and Marketing Exclusivity
In the EU, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon receipt of MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic and biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first 8 years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications, which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical or biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.
Orphan Medicinal Products
The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. A medicinal product can be designated as an orphan if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from the orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment for its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to a number of incentives, such as protocol assistance and scientific advice specifically for designated orphan medicines, and potential fee reductions depending on the status of the sponsor.
Table of Contents
Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an MAA. An EU orphan designation entitles a party to incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized procedure. Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication, which means that the competent authorities cannot accept another MAA, or grant a MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar medicinal product for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan ("PIP"). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
The orphan exclusivity period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for which it received orphan destination, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if: (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.
The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area ("EEA"), which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.
Post-Approval Requirements
Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the member states. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance ("QPPV") who is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of that system, and oversees the safety profiles of medicinal products and any emerging safety concerns. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”).
All new MAA must include a risk management plan (“RMP”) describing the risk management system that we will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.
The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.
The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA.
Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.
Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom
Since the end of the Brexit transition period on January 1, 2021, and the implementation of the Windsor Framework (described further, below) on January 1, 2025, the United Kingdom ("UK") has not been directly subject to EU laws with respect to medicinal products. The EU laws that have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation remain applicable in the UK, but new legislation such as the (EU) CTR is not applicable in the UK.
Table of Contents
Since January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ("MHRA") has been the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Northern Ireland Protocol, different rules applied in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain (comprising England, Scotland and Wales, "GB"); broadly, Northern Ireland continued to follow the EU regulatory regime. However, on January 1, 2025, a new arrangement called the “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes, and EU labelling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland, and introduces a UK-wide licensing process for medicinal products.
The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment and a rolling review procedure. In order to obtain a UK MA to commercialize products in the UK, an applicant must be established in the UK and must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures to obtain an MA to commercialize products in the UK. Since January 1, 2024, an international recognition procedure has been in place whereby the MHRA has been able to conduct targeted assessments of an MAA by recognizing approvals from trusted partner agencies such as the EMA.
With respect to the framework in relation to clinical trials, on April 28, 2025, the UK government adopted the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Amendment Regulations 2024 (becoming fully effective on April 28, 2026), which aims to provide a more flexible regime to make it easier to conduct clinical trials in the UK, increase the transparency of clinical trials conducted in the UK and make clinical trials more patient centered.
There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation in the UK. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding MAA. The criteria are essentially the same as in the EU, but have been tailored for the market; for example, the prevalence of the condition in the UK, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. If an orphan designation is granted, the period of market exclusivity will be set from the date of first approval of the product in the UK.
Other Healthcare Laws
Pharmaceutical companies like us are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such regulation may constrain the financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, develop, and ultimately, sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include, without limitation, foreign, federal and state anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, and false claims laws, such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal Civil False Claims Act, as well as foreign, federal and state transparency laws and regulations with respect to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to physicians and other healthcare providers, such as the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act. In the EU, many EU member states have adopted specific anti-gift statutes that further limit commercial practices for medicinal products, in particular vis-à-vis healthcare professionals and organizations. Additionally, there has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities and many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements (often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the United States, on pharmaceutical companies. Certain countries also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs, or require disclosure of marketing expenditures and pricing information. Violations of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply may result in significant penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of noncompliance, exclusion from participation in foreign, federal and state healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and imprisonment.
Table of Contents
Coverage and Reimbursement
Sales of any pharmaceutical product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing coverage and reimbursement for medical products, drugs and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales.
Moreover, as a condition of participating in, and having products covered under, certain federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, we may become subject to federal laws and regulations that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as Medicaid Average Manufacturer Price ("AMP") and Best Price, Medicare Average Sales Price, the 340B Ceiling Price, and Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price reported to the Department of Veteran Affairs, and with respect to Medicaid, pay statutory rebates on utilization of manufacturers’ products by Medicaid beneficiaries. Compliance with such laws and regulations will require significant resources and may have a material adverse effect on our revenues.
In addition, in many foreign countries the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Member states are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed to by the government. Member states may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the pharmaceutical product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates or products, if approved. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.
Healthcare Reform
In the United States, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, each as amended, collectively known as the "ACA", was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contained a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and changes to fraud and abuse laws. For example, the ACA:
• increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price;
• required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations;
• expanded beneficiary eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;
• expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B Drug Pricing Program;
Table of Contents
• imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain federal government programs;
• established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending;
• created the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and
• required annual reporting of certain information regarding drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to licensed practitioners.
Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2032, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional action is taken by Congress. In addition, the American Rescue Plan, effective January 1, 2024, eliminates the statutory cap on rebate amounts owed by drug manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (the "MDRP"), which was previously capped at 100% of the AMP for a covered outpatient drug.
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the "IRA") was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation; and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which went into effect in 2026, and the subsequent 15 drugs effective in 2027, as well as the next set of 15 drugs that will be subject to negotiation, although the drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated.
In July 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) was enacted, which imposes significant reductions in the funding of the Medicaid program and restrictions for certain groups to access the ACA Marketplace. These changes are expected to decrease the number of persons enrolled in Medicaid and reduce the services covered by Medicaid, and may result in an increase in the number of individuals who are unable to access health insurance benefits and medical care, either of which could adversely affect our sales of any product candidate that we potentially commercialize.
Additionally, the Trump administration has pursued a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the U.S. The administration has threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most favored nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the U.S. to the lowest price in a group of other countries. In response, multiple manufacturers have reportedly entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. The administration is also pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies, and published two proposed regulations in December 2025, referred to as Globe and Guard. If finalized, these regulations would implement mandatory payment models under which manufacturers of eligible drugs would be required to pay rebates to the federal government on a portion of the units of their drugs that are reimbursed by Medicare, with the rebate amount based on most favored nation pricing. While the impact of the Globe and Guard proposed regulations, if finalized, cannot yet be determined, it is likely to be significant. Even regulatory proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business. In addition, pharmaceutical pricing and marketing has long been the subject of considerable discussion among policymakers, and it is possible that Congress could enact additional laws that negatively affect the pharmaceutical industry generally and our business specifically.
Table of Contents
At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure, drug price reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states.
Similar reform considerations exist outside of the United States. At the EU level for example, in 2011 Directive 2011/24/EU was adopted. This Directive establishes a voluntary network of national authorities or bodies responsible for Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) in the individual EU member states. The network facilitates and supports the exchange of scientific information concerning HTAs. Further to this, on December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. The Regulation entered into force in January 2022 and has been applicable since January 2025, with phased implementation based on the type of product, for example oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other new medicinal products by 2030. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.
We expect that additional state, federal and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could impact the amounts that federal and state governments and other third-party payors will pay for healthcare products and services.
Data Privacy and Security
Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, regulations and standards govern the collection, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related and other personal information, and may apply now or in the future to our operations or the operations of our partners. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and consumer protection laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, certain foreign laws, for example the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"), govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data, in applicable jurisdictions. All such privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.
Human Capital
As of December 31, 2025, we had 53 full-time employees, 37 of whom were dedicated to research and development, and 20 of whom held doctorate degrees (i.e., Ph.D. or M.D.). None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
We believe that our future success largely depends upon our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with competitive salaries and bonuses, opportunities for equity ownership, development programs that enable continued learning and growth and a robust employment package that promotes well-being across all aspects of their lives, including health care, retirement planning and paid time off.
We believe that much of our success is rooted in our commitment to inclusion. We value skills and experience at all levels and focus on extending our inclusion and belonging initiatives across our entire workforce.
Our Corporate Information
We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in February 2008. Our principal executive offices are located at 245 Main Street, Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142 and our telephone number is (617) 500-8080.
Table of Contents
Our corporate website address is www.immuneering.com . The information contained in, or accessible through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report and you should not consider information on our website to be a part of this Annual Report. We have included our website address in this Annual Report solely as an inactive textual reference.
Where you can find more information
We are subject to the information requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically, such as ourselves, with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov .
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Our future operating results could differ materially from the results described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K due to the risks and uncertainties described below. You should consider carefully the following information about risks below in evaluating our business. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial conditions, results of operations and future growth prospects would likely be materially and adversely affected. In these circumstances, the market price of our Class A common stock would likely decline. In addition, we cannot assure investors that our assumptions and expectations will prove to be correct. Important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by forward-looking statements. See “Forward-Looking Statements” for a discussion of some of the forward-looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those factors discussed below.
Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements
We are a late-stage clinical oncology company with a limited operating history in developing pharmaceutical products, have not completed any registrational clinical trials and have no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate our current business and predict our future success and viability.
Pharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are a late-stage clinical oncology company with a limited operating history in developing pharmaceutical products which makes it difficult to evaluate our business and prospects in future product development. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources and efforts to providing computational biology services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, organizing and staffing our company, business planning, executing partnerships, raising capital, discovering, identifying and developing potential product candidates, securing related intellectual property rights and undertaking research and preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, including our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial of atebimetinib (also referred to as IMM-1-104) for the treatment of advanced solid tumors. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any registrational clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. As a result, it may be more difficult for you to accurately predict our future success or viability to develop new pharmaceutical products than it could be if we had a longer operating history.
In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by biopharmaceutical companies developing products in rapidly evolving fields. We also may need to transition from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. If we do not adequately address these risks and difficulties or successfully make such a transition, our business will suffer.
Table of Contents
We have incurred significant net losses for the past several years and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future and may never obtain profitability.
We have incurred net losses in each reporting period for the past several years, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and have financed our operations principally through our historical computational biology services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (which have since ceased), the issuance of convertible debt and the sale of our convertible preferred stock, Class A common stock and warrants exercisable for common stock. We have incurred net losses of approximately $56.0 million and $61.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $280.3 million. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development of our product candidates, from management and administrative costs and from other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. We are currently conducting an ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial for our product candidate atebimetinib for the treatment of advanced solid tumors and plan to dose the first patient in our MAPKeeper 301 registrational trial in mid-2026. Our other product candidates are in earlier stages of drug development. As a result, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we discover, develop and market additional potential product candidates.
We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if and as we:
• advance the development of our current and future product candidates, including atebimetinib, through preclinical and clinical development, and, if approved by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, commercialization;
• incur manufacturing costs for our product candidates;
• seek regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;
• increase our research and development activities to identify and develop new product candidates;
• hire additional personnel;
• expand our operational, financial and management systems;
• invest in measures to protect and expand our intellectual property;
• establish a sales, marketing, medical affairs and distribution infrastructure to commercialize any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval and intend to commercialize;
• incur costs in connection with capital raising activities and potential business restructuring activities, if required;
• expand our manufacturing and develop our commercialization efforts, if any; and
• operate as a public company.
The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our working capital and our ability to achieve and maintain profitability.
Table of Contents
To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing product candidates that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval, achieving market acceptance of any such approved products and receiving reimbursements in amounts above our costs. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product candidate development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform preclinical studies or clinical trials in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our ongoing preclinical studies or clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates, our expenses could increase and revenue could be further delayed. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations.
We will require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our research and drug development programs or future commercialization efforts.
Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception, and we expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we initiate and conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials, including any registrational trials, and seek marketing approval for our current and any future product candidates. Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform clinical trials or preclinical studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Other unanticipated costs may also arise. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to drug sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Because the design and outcome of our current and anticipated clinical trials are highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of any product candidate we develop. We also expect to continue to incur the costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations in the future.
As of December 31, 2025, we had $217.0 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. Based on our current business plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our development activities and other operations into 2029. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities to be able to continue to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditures requirements is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.
Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:
• the initiation, progress, timeline, cost and results of our clinical trials for our product candidates, including our planned registrational trial of atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer;
• the initiation, progress, timeline, cost and results of additional research and/or preclinical studies related to pipeline development and other research programs we initiate in the future;
• the cost and timing of manufacturing activities as we advance our product candidates through preclinical and clinical development, and possible commercialization;
• the potential expansion of our current development programs to seek new indications;
• the potential negative impact of widespread adverse economic or health events (including due to military conflict or pandemics) on our business;
Table of Contents
• the outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements established by the FDA, EMA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities;
• the cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patent claims and other intellectual property rights, in-licensed or otherwise;
• the effect of competing technological and market developments;
• the payment of licensing fees, potential royalty payments and potential milestone payments;
• the cost of general operating expenses;
• the cost and timing of completion of commercial-scale manufacturing activities, if any;
• the cost of establishing sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities for any product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval in regions where we choose to commercialize our products on our own; and
• the cost of operating as a public company.
Advancing the development of our product candidates will require a significant amount of capital. Our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities will not be sufficient to fund all of the activities that are necessary to complete the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates.
We will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources, which may dilute our stockholders or restrict our operating activities. We do not have any committed external source of funds. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. For example in the past, due to macroeconomic conditions including inflation and higher interest rates, the stock price of biotech companies, including ours, generally declined, making fundraising in our industry more difficult and on less favorable terms. Furthermore, additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and potentially commercialize our product candidates. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed or on acceptable terms would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our research-stage programs, clinical trials or future commercialization efforts. In that event, we may have to delay, scale back, or eliminate some or all of our operations, sell assets and/or seek other strategic alternatives.
We maintain the majority of our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities in accounts with major U.S. and multi-national financial institutions, and our deposits at certain of these institutions exceed insured limits. Market conditions have in the past impacted and may in the future impact the viability of these institutions. In the event of failure of any of the financial institutions where we maintain our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, there can be no assurance that we would be able to access uninsured funds in a timely manner or at all. Any inability to access or delay in accessing these funds could adversely affect our business and financial position.
Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.
We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or other sources, including up-front payments and milestone payments from strategic collaborations. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt or equity securities, for example as we did in August and September 2025, your ownership interest may be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. In addition to dilution, such financings may result in the imposition of debt covenants, increased fixed payment obligations, other restrictions (including operating restrictions) or other obligations (for example, providing registration or other information rights to certain investors, as we did in connection with private placements of equity securities in 2025) that may affect our business. If we raise additional funds through up-front payments or milestone payments pursuant to strategic collaborations with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.
Table of Contents
Our ability to use our net operating losses and other tax attributes may be limited.
As of December 31, 2025, we had approximately $174.8 million of federal and $56.7 million of state net operating loss carryforwards ("NOLs"), available to offset future taxable income. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50% change by value in its equity ownership over a three-year period is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs and other tax attributes such as research tax credits to offset future taxable income. We have not performed an analysis to determine whether our past issuances of stock and other changes in our stock ownership may have resulted in other ownership changes. If it is determined that we have in the past experienced other ownership changes, or if we undergo one or more ownership changes as a result of future transactions in our stock, which may be outside our control, then our ability to utilize NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes could be further limited by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, and certain of our NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes may expire unused. As a result, if or when we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs or other tax attributes to offset such taxable income or otherwise reduce any liability for income taxes may be subject to limitations, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.
Risks Related to Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization
The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable with respect to outcomes. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, or to obtain regulatory approval to treat the indications we seek to treat with our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue or the level of planned product revenue and our business will be substantially harmed.
We are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, impose similar requirements. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other data. Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of any regulatory filing for our product candidates, the FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may approve our product candidates for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested. We have not submitted for, or obtained, regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.
Applications for our product candidates could fail to receive, or be delayed in receiving, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:
• the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design, implementation or results of our clinical trials, including without limitation with respect to the appropriate dosing in patients or the use of our product candidates as potential combination therapies;
• the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe and/or not effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use;
• the population studied in a clinical trial may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure efficacy and safety in the full population for which we seek approval;
• the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials;
• the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of a NDA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States, European Union or elsewhere;
Table of Contents
• we may be unable to demonstrate to the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate’s risk-benefit ratio for its proposed indication is acceptable;
• the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes, test procedures and specifications or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and
• the approval policies or regulations of the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.
This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. In addition, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change their policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval of our future product candidates under development on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain approvals, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained.
In addition, even if we obtain approval of our product candidates, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, or a REMS. Regulatory authorities may not approve the price we intend to charge for products we may develop, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could seriously harm our business.
We may not be able to submit additional INDs or IND amendments or comparable documents in foreign jurisdictions to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA may not permit us to proceed.
We may not be able to submit additional INDs, IND amendments or comparable documents for atebimetinib, for which an IND was previously submitted, or for our other current or potential product candidates on the timelines we expect. We may also experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND or comparable document will result in the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. These considerations also apply to new clinical trials we may submit as amendments to existing INDs or to a new IND. Any failure to file INDs on the timelines we expect or to obtain regulatory approvals for our trials may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely basis, if at all.
We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may experience delays or unexpected difficulties in obtaining regulatory approval for our current and future product candidates.
We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval, including, for example, our planned registrational trial of atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer. We cannot be certain that our ongoing or planned clinical trials or any future clinical trials will be successful. For example, in April 2025 we paused further internal advancement of envometinib (IMM-6-415) and the related Phase 1/2a clinical trial. Further, it is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept, or be delayed in accepting, any or all of our planned NDAs for substantive review or may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates. If the FDA does not approve any of our planned NDAs, it may require that we conduct additional costly clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing validation studies before it will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any NDA or other application that we submit may be significantly delayed, possibly for several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. Any failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve any NDA or other application that we submit. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon the development of our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. We face similar risks for applications in foreign jurisdictions with comparable regulatory agencies, including without limitation the EMA.
Table of Contents
We may encounter substantial delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
Before obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must complete preclinical development and extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and its ultimate outcome is uncertain. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of the process. The outcome of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their drugs.
In addition, we are substantially dependent on preclinical, clinical and quality data generated by CROs and other third parties for regulatory submissions for our product candidates. While we have or will have agreements governing these third parties’ services, we have limited influence over their actual performance. If these third parties do not make data available to us, or, if applicable, make regulatory submissions in a timely manner, in each case pursuant to our agreements with them, our development programs may be significantly delayed, and we may need to conduct additional studies or collect additional data independently. In either case, our development costs would increase, perhaps substantially.
We do not know whether our future clinical trials will begin on time or enroll patients on time, or whether our future clinical trials will be completed on schedule or at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:
• the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities disagreeing as to the design, implementation or results of our clinical trials, including without limitation with respect to the appropriate or proper escalation of dosing in patients or the use of our product candidates as potential combination therapies;
• obtaining regulatory authorizations to commence a trial or reaching a consensus with regulatory authorities on trial design;
• any failure or delay in reaching an agreement with CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
• obtaining approval from one or more IRBs;
• IRBs refusing to approve, suspending or terminating the trial at an investigational site, precluding enrollment of additional subjects, or withdrawing their approval of the trial;
• delays in enrollment due to travel or quarantine policies, or other factors related to current or future pandemics or other events outside our control;
• changes to clinical trial protocol;
• clinical sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial;
• manufacturing sufficient quantities of product candidates or obtaining sufficient quantities of combination therapies for use in clinical trials;
• subjects failing to enroll or remain in our trial at the rate, with the tumor types, and/or at the stage(s) of disease that we expect, or failing to return for post-treatment follow-up;
• subjects choosing an alternative treatment for the indication for which we are developing our product candidates, or participating in competing clinical trials;
• lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial;
• subjects experiencing severe or unexpected drug-related adverse effects;
• occurrence of serious adverse events in trials of the same class of agents conducted by other companies;
• selection of clinical end points that require prolonged periods of clinical observation or analysis of the resulting data;
Table of Contents
• a facility manufacturing our product candidates or any of their components being ordered by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to temporarily or permanently shut down due to violations of cGMP regulations or other applicable requirements, or infections or cross-contaminations of product candidates in the manufacturing process;
• any changes to our manufacturing process that may be necessary or desired;
• third-party clinical investigators losing the licenses or permits necessary to perform our clinical trials, not performing our clinical trials on our anticipated schedule or consistent with the clinical trial protocol, GCP, or other regulatory or contractual requirements;
• third-party contractors not performing data collection or analysis in a timely or accurate manner; or
• third-party contractors becoming debarred or suspended or otherwise penalized by the FDA, EMA or other government or regulatory authorities for violations of regulatory requirements, in which case we may need to find a substitute contractor, and we may not be able to use some or all of the data produced by such contractors in support of our marketing applications.
In addition, the occurrence of any public health crisis or similar global events, such as a future pandemic and its variants, could disrupt the supply chain and the manufacture or shipment of drug substances and finished drug products for our product candidates for use in our research and clinical trials, delay, limit or prevent our employees and CROs from continuing research and development activities, impede the ability of patients to enroll or continue in clinical trials, or impede testing, monitoring, data collection and analysis or other related activities, any of which could delay our clinical trials and increase our development costs, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.
Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, including with respect to healthcare, cybersecurity and data privacy matters, as well as political and economic risks or military conflicts relevant to such foreign countries.
Additionally, if the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:
• be delayed in obtaining marketing approval, if at all;
• obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired;
• obtain approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings;
• be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements;
• be required to perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials to support approval or be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements;
• have regulatory authorities withdraw, or suspend, their approval of the drug or impose restrictions on its distribution in the form of a modified REMS;
• be subject to the addition of labeling statements, such as warnings or contraindications;
Table of Contents
• be sued; or
• experience damage to our reputation.
Our development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, need to be restructured or be completed on schedule, if at all. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials will delay the submission of an NDA to the FDA or similar applications with comparable foreign regulatory authorities and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and generate product revenue. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our claims for differentiation or the effectiveness or safety of our product candidates. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA and EMA have substantial discretion in the review and approval process and may disagree that our data support the claims we propose.
Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.
If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.
In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate. Any delays to our clinical trials that occur as a result could shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our product candidates could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
The outcome of preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials, such as our planned registrational trial of atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in first-line pancreatic cancer, will be successful. We do not know whether any of our product candidates will perform in current or future clinical trials as they have performed in preclinical studies or prior clinical trials. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials.
Table of Contents
In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments and may be using other approved products or investigational new drugs, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate. As a result, assessments of efficacy can vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. This subjectivity can increase the uncertainty of, and adversely impact, our clinical trial outcomes. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could seriously harm our business. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization.
Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval. We cannot guarantee that the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret trial results as we do, and more trials could be required before we are able to submit applications seeking approval of our product candidates. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for any of our product candidates, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of our product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential. Furthermore, the approval policies or regulations of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval, which may lead to the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities delaying, limiting or denying approval of our product candidates.
Interim, “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.
From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, preliminary or top-line data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. Top-line and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.
From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. For example, we disclosed updated interim safety and efficacy data from the Phase 2a portion of our ongoing Phase 1/2a clinical trial of atebimetinib in January 2026. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between top-line, preliminary and/or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the trading price of our Class A common stock.
Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, top-line, or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and potentially commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, results of operations, prospects or financial condition. Moreover, such disclosure could adversely affect the trading price of our Class A common stock.
Table of Contents
Our current or future product candidates may cause adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable side effects when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs that may result in a safety profile that could inhibit regulatory approval, prevent market acceptance, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.
As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with the use of our product candidates. Results of our preclinical studies and clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
If our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in preclinical studies or clinical trials when used alone or in combination with approved or other investigational products, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial, or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
Patients in our clinical trials may in the future suffer significant drug-related adverse events or other side effects, including those not observed in our preclinical studies or previous clinical trials. Some of our product candidates may be used as chronic therapies or be used in pediatric populations, for which safety concerns may be particularly scrutinized by regulatory agencies. In addition, our product candidates, when used in combination with other therapies, may exacerbate adverse events associated with the therapy. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation, chemotherapy or other aggressive treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate, but may still negatively impact the success of our clinical trials. Similarly, already critically ill patients that we enroll in our clinical trials have in the past and may in the future experience adverse medical events due to the general gravity or advanced stage of such patients’ illnesses, in each case which could adversely affect our clinical trials even though such outcomes are not related or attributable to our product candidates.
If significant drug-related adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA, EMA, other comparable regulatory authorities or an IRB may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.
Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. For example, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and costlier than what is typical for the industry. We or our collaborators may also be required to adopt a REMS or engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product that we develop alone or with collaborators. Other potentially significant negative consequences include that:
• we may be forced to suspend marketing of that product, or be forced to or decide to remove the product form the marketplace;
• regulatory authorities may withdraw or change their approvals of that product in one or more countries;
Table of Contents
• regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label or limit access of that product to selective specialized centers with additional safety reporting and with requirements that patients be geographically close to these centers for all or part of their treatment;
• we may be required to create a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for patients, or to conduct post-marketing studies;
• we may be required to change the way the product is administered;
• we could be subject to fines, injunctions, or the imposition of criminal or civil penalties, or to be sued and held liable for harm caused to subjects or patients; and
• the product may become less competitive, and our reputation may suffer.
Any of these events could diminish the usage or otherwise limit the commercial success of our product candidates and prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate, if approved by applicable regulatory authorities.
If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment and/or maintenance of patients in clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.
Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, and the timing of our clinical trials depends, in part, on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in our trials, as well as completion of required follow-up periods. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials to such trial’s conclusion as required by the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Additionally, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that focus on the same therapeutic targets as our current and potential future product candidates, which may further limit enrollment of eligible patients or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials, once established, may further limit the pool of available trial participants.
Patient enrollment may also be affected if our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that are under development for the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. Patient enrollment for any of our clinical trials may be affected by other factors, including:
• size and nature of the patient population;
• severity of the disease under investigation;
• availability and efficacy of other developmental or approved drugs for the disease under investigation;
• patient eligibility criteria for the trial in question as defined in the protocol;
• perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study;
• clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new products that may be approved for the indications we are investigating;
• efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;
• patient referral practices of physicians;
• the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment;
• proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients;
• continued enrollment of prospective patients by clinical trial sites;
• the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion or will not survive the full terms of the clinical trials (including without limitation because they may be late-stage cancer patients); and
Table of Contents
• delays or difficulties in enrollment and completion of studies due to ongoing and future pandemics, or other widespread adverse health events.
Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to obtain marketing approval for the sale of our product candidates. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining enrollment of such patients in our clinical trials.
Even if approved, our product candidates may not achieve adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.
Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our approved product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:
• the efficacy and safety profile as demonstrated in clinical trials compared to alternative treatments;
• the timing of market introduction of the product candidate as well as competitive products;
• the clinical indications for which the product candidate is approved;
• restrictions on the use of our product candidates, such as boxed warnings or contraindications in labeling, or a REMS, if any, which may not be required of alternative treatments and competitor products;
• the potential and perceived advantages of product candidates over alternative treatments;
• the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;
• the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement, as well as pricing, by third-party payors, including government authorities;
• the availability of the approved product candidate for use as a combination therapy;
• relative convenience and ease of administration;
• the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;
• the effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts;
• unfavorable publicity relating to our products or product candidates or similar approved products or product candidates in development by third parties; and
• the approval of other new therapies for the same indications.
If any of our product candidates is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate or derive sufficient revenue from that product candidate and our financial results could be negatively impacted.
We may be unable to obtain U.S. or foreign regulatory approvals and, as a result, may be unable to commercialize our product candidates.
Our product candidates are subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to, among other things, research, testing, development, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, approval, recordkeeping, reporting, labeling, storage, packaging, advertising and promotion, pricing, marketing and distribution of drugs. Rigorous preclinical testing and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory approval process must be successfully completed in the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions before a new drug can be marketed. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. We cannot provide any assurance that any product candidate we may develop will progress through required clinical testing and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for us to begin selling them.
Table of Contents
We have not conducted, managed or completed large-scale or pivotal clinical trials nor completed the regulatory approval process with the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authority. The time required to obtain approvals from the FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities is unpredictable, and requires successful completion of extensive clinical trials which typically takes many years, depending upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate. The standards that the FDA and its foreign counterparts use when evaluating clinical trial data can and often changes during drug development, which makes it difficult to predict with any certainty how they will be applied. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations, including future legislation or administrative action, or changes in FDA, EMA or other applicable regulatory authority policy during the period of drug development, clinical trials and regulatory review.
Any delay or failure in seeking or obtaining required approvals would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from the particular product candidate for which we are developing and seeking approval. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a drug may be subject to significant limitations on the approved uses or indications for which we may market the drug or the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a REMS as part of approving a NDA, or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug. These requirements or restrictions might include limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may significantly limit the size of the market for the drug and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.
We are also subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries, and generally includes all of the risks associated with FDA and EMA approval processes described above, as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA or EMA approval.
Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates is unproven, and we may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our DCT platform and capabilities to build a pipeline of product candidates with commercial value.
A key element of our strategy is to use and expand our DCT platform to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress these product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of various cancers. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in our discovery, preclinical and clinical development of atebimetinib and other product candidates, it and other product candidates may not be safe or effective for the indications for which we study them in clinical trials, and we may not be able to develop any other product candidates. Our DCT platform is evolving and may not reach a state at which building a pipeline of product candidates is possible.
The scientific research that forms the basis of our efforts to develop product candidates with our platforms is still ongoing. Further, the scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing therapeutic treatments based on our DCT platform is both preliminary and limited. As a result, we are exposed to a number of unforeseen risks and it is difficult to predict the types of challenges and risks that we may encounter during development of our product candidates. For example, we have only generated interim data from the ongoing Phase 1/2a trial of atebimetinib, and otherwise our data for this product candidate is limited to animal models and preclinical cell lines, the results of which may not translate into humans. As a result, it is possible that safety or other adverse events or concerns could negatively affect the development of atebimetinib or our other current or future product candidates, including adversely affecting patient enrollment among the patient populations that we intend to treat.
Given the novelty of our technologies, we intend to work closely with the FDA, EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform the requisite scientific analyses and evaluation of our methods to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates; however, due to a lack of comparable experiences, the regulatory pathway with the FDA, EMA and comparable regulatory authorities may be more complex and time-consuming relative to other more well-known therapeutics. Even if we obtain human data to support our product candidates, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies may lack experience in evaluating the safety and efficacy of our product candidates developed using our platforms, which could result in a longer than expected regulatory review process, increase our expected development costs, and delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates. The validation process takes time and resources, may require independent third-party analyses, and may not be accepted or approved by the FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We cannot be certain that our approach will lead to the development of approvable or marketable products, alone or in combination with other therapies.
Table of Contents
Additionally, a key element of our strategy is to use and expand our platforms to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress those product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of different types of diseases. Although our research and development efforts to date have been focused on identifying a pipeline of product candidates directed at various disease types, we may not be able to develop product candidates that are safe and effective. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be approvable or marketable products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance.
Even if we are successful in building our pipeline of product candidates, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development or generate acceptable clinical data, including as a result of being shown to have unacceptable toxicity or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval from the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities or achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we will not be able to generate product revenue in the future, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.
We intend to develop certain of our current product candidates in combination with other therapies, and may develop our future product candidates in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks.
We intend to develop atebimetinib as a potential biologic/drug combination product, and we may also develop other current or future product candidates as biologic/drug combination products. Additional time may be required to obtain regulatory approval for any of our current or future product candidates if or when they are developed as potential combination products. Any of our product candidates that may be biologic/drug combination products will require coordination within the FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for review of their biologic and drug components. Although the FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities have systems in place for the review and approval of combination products, we may experience delays in the development and commercialization of our product candidates that may be combination products due to regulatory timing constraints and uncertainties in the product development and approval process.
In addition, even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities outside of the United States could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with any of those existing therapies. If the therapies we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own products, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.
We also may choose to evaluate our current product candidates or any other future product candidates in combination with one or more therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market and sell our product candidates we develop in combination with an unapproved therapy for a combination indication if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval either alone or in combination with our product. In addition, unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development and clinical trials, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA, EMA or other regulatory approval.
If the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other drugs or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, quality, manufacturing or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with our product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market such combination therapy.
Table of Contents
If we successfully develop our product candidates, we may seek approval from the FDA through the use of accelerated approval pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we initially contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.
We may seek an accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. If such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug.
Prior to seeking accelerated approval for any of our product candidates, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit an NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or receive an expedited regulatory designation (e.g., breakthrough therapy designation) for our product candidates, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidate would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.
Similar considerations exist with respect to the potential use of accelerated approval pathways in other jurisdictions outside of the United States.
We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs, therapeutic platforms and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other therapeutic platforms or product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success than our product candidates. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs, therapeutic platforms and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.
Third parties with product candidates or products targeting the MAPK pathway may produce negative preclinical or clinical data which may adversely affect public perception of our product candidates, and may negatively impact regulatory approval of, or demand for, our potential products.
Table of Contents
Certain of our product candidates, including atebimetinib, are based on the DCI of the MAPK pathway as a model of therapeutic intervention. Our DCI approach may not be viewed as distinct from other existing therapies targeting the MAPK pathway, and negative third party data from preclinical studies and/or clinical trials using other MAPK-targeted therapies could negatively impact the perception of the therapeutic use of such product candidates or products on the whole. This could, among other things, negatively impact our ability to enroll patients in clinical trials. The clinical and commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the public’s and clinical community’s acceptance of the use of DCI therapies. Moreover, our success depends upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, treatments that involve the use of product candidates we may develop in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in our clinical trials, or those of our competitors or of academic researchers utilizing MAPK-targeted therapies, even if not ultimately similar or attributable to our DCI product candidates, and the resulting publicity, could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, increased volatility in our stock price, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for our product candidates that are approved, if any, and a decrease in demand for any such products, if approved.
Risks Related to Our Business
We are early in our development efforts. Our business is substantially dependent on the successful development of our current and future product candidates. If we are unable to advance our current or future product candidates through clinical trials, obtain marketing approval to treat the indications that we seek to treat with our product candidates, and ultimately commercialize any product candidates we develop, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.
We are early in our development efforts and we have not yet completed our Phase 1/2a clinical trial for our lead product candidate atebimetinib. Further, we have only disclosed interim data for atebimetinib, and in April 2025 we paused further internal advancement of envometinib and the related Phase 1/2a clinical trial. Our other product candidates are in earlier stages of drug development. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the identification of targets, preclinical and clinical development of small molecules targeting the MAPK and other pathways in cancer therapy.
The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate revenue from products in the future, which we do not expect will occur for several years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of the product candidates we develop, which may never occur. Our current product candidates, and any future product candidates we develop, will require additional preclinical and clinical development, management of clinical, preclinical and manufacturing activities, marketing approval in the United States and other markets, demonstrating effectiveness to pricing and reimbursement authorities, obtaining sufficient manufacturing supply for both clinical development and commercial production, building of a commercial organization, and substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenues from product sales.
The success of our current and future product candidates will depend on several factors, including without limitation the following:
• the successful and timely completion of additional preclinical studies;
• the successful initiation, patient enrollment and completion on a timely basis of our ongoing and any future clinical trials (including our planned registrational trial of atebimetinib in combination with mGnP in pancreatic cancer), despite any delays including those arising out of ongoing or future pandemics, or other widespread adverse health events;
• maintaining and establishing relationships with CROs and clinical sites for clinical development, both in the United States and internationally;
• the frequency and severity of adverse events in the clinical trials;
• the efficacy, safety and tolerability profiles that are satisfactory to the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority for marketing approval;
• the timely receipt of marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;
• the extent of any required post-marketing approval commitments to applicable regulatory authorities;
Table of Contents
• the maintenance of existing or the establishment of new supply arrangements with third-party drug product suppliers and manufacturers for clinical development;
• the maintenance of existing, or the establishment of new, scaled production arrangements with third-party manufacturers to obtain finished products that are appropriate for commercial sale of our product candidates, if approved;
• obtaining and maintaining patent protection, trade secret protection and regulatory exclusivity, both in the United States and internationally;
• the protection of our rights in our intellectual property portfolio;
• the successful launch of commercial sales following any marketing approval;
• a continued acceptable safety profile following any marketing approval;
• commercial acceptance by patients, the medical community and third-party payors; and
• our ability to compete with other therapies.
We do not have complete control over many of these factors, including certain aspects of clinical development and the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales efforts of any future collaborator. If we are not successful with respect to one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize the product candidates we develop, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive marketing approvals for atebimetinib or any other product candidate we develop, we may not be able to continue our operations.
We are substantially dependent on our platform, including our proprietary technologies, which are supported by our information technology systems. Any failure of these or other elements of our platform will materially harm our business.
We are substantially dependent on our platform, including our proprietary technologies, which are supported by our information technology systems, for significant elements of our drug discovery process, bioinformatics and computational biology software systems, database of information relating to our product candidates and their role in the targeted disease process, amongst others. Although we invest substantially in the backup/restore, high-availability architecture, monitoring and reporting, documentation and preventive security controls of our systems and proprietary technologies, these elements of our platform are still vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including telecommunications or network failures, malicious or inadvertent human acts, and natural disasters. Our information technology systems and proprietary technologies are potentially also vulnerable to physical or electronic break-ins, employee errors, computer viruses and similar disruptive problems. Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our information technology systems and proprietary technologies, failures or significant downtime of these systems could prevent us from conducting research and development activities for our current and future product candidates, and ultimately delay our drug discovery process. Any failure of our information technology systems and proprietary technologies will materially harm our business.
Our long-term prospects depend in part upon discovering, developing and commercializing product candidates, which may fail in development or suffer delays that adversely affect their commercial viability.
Our future results of operations are dependent on our ability to successfully discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize product candidates beyond those we currently have in preclinical studies and early stage clinical trial development. A product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical and clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates is high due to risks relating to safety, efficacy, clinical execution, changing standards of medical care and other unpredictable variables. The results from preclinical studies or earlier clinical trials of a product candidate may not be predictive of the results that will be obtained in later stage clinical trials of the product candidate.
The success of the product candidates we have or may develop will depend on many factors, including without limitation the following:
• the success of our research methodology in identifying potential indications or product candidates;
• generating sufficient data to support the initiation or continuation of clinical trials;
Table of Contents
• obtaining regulatory permission to initiate clinical trials;
• contracting with the necessary parties to conduct clinical trials;
• successful enrollment of patients in, and the completion of, clinical trials on a timely basis;
• the timely manufacture of sufficient quantities of the product candidate for use in clinical trials;
• adverse events in the clinical trials; and
• any potential interruptions or delays resulting from factors related to ongoing or future pandemics, or other widespread adverse health events.
Even if we successfully advance any other product candidates into clinical development, their success will be subject to all of the clinical, regulatory and commercial risks described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will ever be able to discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval of, commercialize or generate significant revenue from our other product candidates.
We have never commercialized a product candidate before and may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any products on our own or together with suitable collaborators.
We have never commercialized a product candidate, and we currently have no sales force, marketing or distribution capabilities. We will have to develop our own sales, marketing and supply organization or outsource some or all of these activities to a third party to commercialize our products. If we decide to license our product candidates to others, we may need to rely on the marketing assistance and guidance of those collaborators.
Factors that may affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates on our own include recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel, obtaining access to or persuading adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe our product candidates and other unforeseen costs associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. Developing a sales and marketing organization will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay the launch of our product candidates. We may not be able to build an effective sales and marketing organization, if at all. If we are unable to build our own distribution and marketing capabilities or to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may not generate revenues from them or be able to reach or sustain profitability.
We face significant competition, and if our competitors develop and market technologies or products more rapidly than we do or that are more effective, safer or less expensive than the product candidates we develop, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.
The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. Our competitors have developed, are developing or may develop products, product candidates, technologies or processes competitive with our product candidates. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that a significant number of products are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may attempt to develop product candidates. In addition, our products may need to compete with off-label drugs used by physicians to treat the indications for which we seek approval. This may make it difficult for us to replace existing therapies with our products.
In particular, there is intense competition in the fields of oncology we are pursuing. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational biopharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty biopharmaceutical companies, emerging and start-up companies, universities and other research institutions. Our product candidates and programs for oncology will compete with products or programs being advanced by certain of these pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, organizations and institutions. We also compete with these organizations to recruit management, scientists and clinical development and other personnel, which could negatively affect our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan. We will also face competition in establishing clinical trial sites, enrolling subjects for clinical trials and in identifying and in-licensing new product candidates.
Table of Contents
We have chosen to initially address well-validated biochemical targets, and therefore expect to face competition from existing products and products in development for each of our product candidates. There are a large number of companies developing or marketing treatments for cancer, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Many of these current and potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources and commercial expertise than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities and experience than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or in discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.
Our commercial opportunities could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe effects, are more convenient, have a broader label, are marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain marketing approval from the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Even if the product candidates we develop achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive products if any have been approved by then, resulting in reduced competitiveness. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical. If we are unable to compete effectively, our opportunity to generate revenue from the sale of our products we may develop, if approved, could be adversely affected.
If the market opportunity for any product candidate that we develop is smaller than we believe, our revenue may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.
We intend to initially focus our product candidate development on treatments for various oncology indications. Our projections of addressable patient populations that may benefit from treatment with our product candidates are based on our estimates. These estimates, which have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations and market research, may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may not ultimately be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Our market opportunity may also be limited by future competitor treatments that enter the market. If any of our estimates prove to be inaccurate, the market opportunity for any product candidate that we develop could be significantly diminished and have an adverse material impact on our business.
We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate and we may be unable to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approval for any product candidate.
We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept for substantive review any NDAs that we submit for our product candidates or may conclude after review of our data that our applications are insufficient to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates. If the FDA does not accept or approve our NDAs for our product candidates, it may require that we conduct additional clinical trials, preclinical or manufacturing validation studies and submit that data before it will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any NDA that we submit may be delayed or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. It is also possible that additional studies, even if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve our NDAs. Similar considerations exist with respect to potentially obtaining marketing approvals in other jurisdictions outside of the United States.
Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, marketing approvals, whether in the United States or internationally, would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, generating revenues, and achieving and sustaining profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for our product candidates, which could significantly harm our business.
Table of Contents
Unfavorable global and regional economic, political and health conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our business could be adversely affected by global or regional economic, political and / or health conditions. For example, various macroeconomic factors could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, including changes in inflation, interest rates and overall economic conditions and uncertainties, such as those resulting from political instability (such as workforce uncertainty), trade disputes between nations, and the current and future conditions in the global financial markets. For example, the imposition of tariffs by the U.S. government and any retaliatory tariffs imposed in response have created significant uncertainty, including in the amount, applicability and duration of such tariffs. Tariffs impacting the availability or price of resources used to manufacture our current or future product candidates could adversely affect our preclinical studies and clinical trials and, if in the future any of our product candidates are approved, tariffs may also adversely impact the price and / or demand for such approved products. Moreover third-party vendors, including CROs and CMOs upon which we rely, may suffer disruptions in their businesses or experience significant increases in the cost of their goods or services sold (which they may pass through, in part or in whole, to us) due to factors beyond their control, including tariffs. Additionally, if sustained high rates of inflation or other factors were to significantly increase our business costs, we may be unable to manage such increased expenses or pass through price increases. A global financial crisis or global or regional political and economic instability, wars, terrorism, civil unrest, outbreaks of disease, and other unexpected events, such as supply chain constraints or disruptions, could cause extreme volatility in the capital and credit markets and disrupt our business. Business disruptions could include, among others, disruptions to our research or clinical activities, including due to supply chain or distribution constraints or challenges, clinical enrollment, clinical site availability, patient accessibility, and conduct of our clinical trials, as well as temporary closures of the facilities of suppliers or contract manufacturers in the biotechnology supply chain. In addition, during certain crises and events, patients may prioritize other items over certain or all of their treatments and/or medications, which could have a negative impact on our clinical trials A severe or prolonged economic downturn, political disruption and / or adverse health conditions could result in a variety of risks to our business, including our ability to raise capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which political, economic, health and / or financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.
Ongoing and potential future pandemics could adversely impact our business, including our current and future clinical trials, supply chain and business development activities.
The effects of government actions, our own policies or those of third parties to address ongoing pandemics and any future pandemic may negatively impact productivity and slow down or delay our future clinical trials, preclinical studies and research and development activities, and may cause disruptions to our supply chain and impair our ability to execute our business development strategy. We may also experience delays in receiving approval from regulatory authorities to initiate or conduct our ongoing or planned clinical trials and delays in regulatory review or approval of any NDA or similar foreign filing we may submit following positive results, if any, in a pivotal study for any of our drug candidates. We may also experience operational delays such as delays or difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical trials; interruption of key clinical trial activities, such as clinical trial site monitoring due to limitations on travel imposed or recommended by federal or state governments, employers and others, or interruption of clinical trial subject visits and study procedures, the occurrence of which could affect the integrity of clinical trial data; and changes in local regulations as part of a response to ongoing or future pandemics, which may require us to change the ways in which our clinical trials are conducted and result in unexpected costs, or to discontinue such clinical trials altogether..
While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, ongoing or future pandemics is difficult to assess or predict, there has in the past been (for example, because of COVID-19 and its variants) and could further be a significant disruption of global financial markets due to a pandemic, that may reduce our ability to access capital and negatively affect our liquidity and financial position. In addition, the trading prices for our Company and other biopharmaceutical companies have in the past been volatile due in part to pandemic, and the same may occur in the future.
These and other disruptions in our operations and the global economy, due to ongoing or future pandemics or any other widespread public health crisis, could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Table of Contents
Risks Relating to Our Dependence on Third Parties
We substantially rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs, to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.
We substantially rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third-party CROs, to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We, our third-party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with investigational drug substance produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be adversely affected if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.
Further, there is no guarantee that any such CROs, investigators or other third parties on which we rely will devote adequate time and resources to our development activities or perform as contractually required. These risks are heightened as a result of the efforts of government agencies and the CROs themselves may take to limit the spread of disease from ongoing or future pandemics, including quarantines and shelter-in-place orders. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed or precluded entirely.
Our CROs generally have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs may also have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us for other reasons, including without limitation if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated.
If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Additionally, CROs may lack the capacity to absorb higher workloads or take on additional capacity to support our needs. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.
Table of Contents
We rely on, and in the future may rely on, third-party datasets and collaborations with third parties to inform patient selection, drug target identification and other bioinformatic and computational biology analyses for our existing product candidates and any future product candidates and for the supply of biomarker companion diagnostics.
We are using bioinformatics, including data analytics, biostatistics and computational biology, throughout our drug discovery and development process, including to identify new target and biomarker opportunities. As part of this approach, we interrogate public and proprietary datasets, including, but not limited to, human tumor genetic information and specific cancer-target dependency networks. We rely on these datasets and data analytics for multiple analyses, including identifying or validating some of our biomarker-target relationships and access to these databases may not continue to be available publicly or through a proprietary subscription on acceptable terms. Our past, present and future use of such datasets could also create potential liabilities for us if the data provided to us contains inherent errors, inaccuracies or artifacts, or if we improperly analyze, handle, store or utilize the data.
Many of our product candidates also rely on the availability and use of commercially available tumor diagnostics panels or data on the prevalence of our target patient population to inform the patient selection and drug target identification for our product candidates. In cases where such biomarker diagnostic is not already commercially available, we expect to establish strategic collaborations for the clinical supply and development of companion diagnostics. If these diagnostics are not able to be developed at a commercially reasonable cost or at all, or if commercial tumor profiling panels are not able to be updated to include additional tumor-associated genes, or if clinical oncologists do not incorporate molecular or genetic sequencing into their clinical practice, we may not be successful in developing our existing product candidates or any future product candidates.
If we decide to establish new collaborations in the future, but are not able to establish those collaborations on a timely basis, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.
Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. We may seek to selectively form collaborations to, among other things, expand our capabilities, potentially accelerate research and development activities and provide for commercialization activities by third parties. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business.
We may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators and the related negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing drugs, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of intellectual property and industry and market conditions generally. The potential collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. Further, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a collaboration or other alternative arrangements for future product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view them as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy.
In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large biopharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Even if we are successful in entering into a collaboration, the terms and conditions of that collaboration may restrict us from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators.
If and when we seek to enter into collaborations, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.
Table of Contents
We may enter into collaborations in the future with third parties for the development and commercialization of product candidates. If those collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates.
We may seek third-party collaborators in the future for the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any future collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. We will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. Collaborations involving our product candidates could pose numerous risks to us, including the following:
• collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations and may not perform their obligations as expected;
• collaborators may de-emphasize or not pursue development and commercialization of our product candidates or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus, including as a result of a sale or disposition of a business unit or development function, or available funding or external factors such as an acquisition that diverts resources or creates competing priorities;
• collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;
• collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates if, for example, the collaborators believe that such competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours;
• a collaborator with marketing and distribution rights to multiple products may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of our product relative to other products;
• collaborators may not properly obtain, maintain, defend or enforce our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information and intellectual property in such a way as to invite litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings that could jeopardize or invalidate our proprietary information and intellectual property or expose us to potential litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings;
• disputes may arise between the collaborators and us that result in the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of our product candidates or that result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources;
• collaborations may be terminated and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates;
• collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all; and
• if a collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our drug development or commercialization program could be delayed, diminished or terminated.
Table of Contents
Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.
We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities. Misconduct by these parties could include failures to comply with FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory authority regulations, provide accurate information to such regulators, comply with international, federal and state health care fraud and abuse and compliance laws and regulations, accurately report financial information or data or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, submission of false claims, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting/rebating, marketing and promotion, consulting, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by these parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.
Risks Related to Manufacturing
The manufacture of drugs is complex and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide adequate supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or prevented.
Manufacturing drugs, especially in large quantities, is complex and may require the use of innovative technologies. Each lot of an approved drug product must undergo thorough testing for identity, strength, quality, purity and potency.
Manufacturing drugs requires facilities specifically designed for and validated for this purpose, as well as sophisticated quality assurance and quality control procedures. Slight deviations anywhere in the manufacturing process, including filling, labeling, packaging, storage and shipping and quality control and testing, may result in lot failures, product recalls or spoilage. When changes are made to the manufacturing process, we may be required to provide preclinical and clinical data showing the comparable identity, strength, quality, purity or potency of the products before and after such changes. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at the facilities of our manufacturer, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and adversely harm our business. The use of biologically derived ingredients can also lead to allegations of harm, including infections or allergic reactions, or closure of product facilities due to possible contamination. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization (if applicable) as a result of these challenges, or otherwise, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.
Table of Contents
We contract with third parties, including contract manufacturing organizations and consultants, for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials, and expect to continue to do so for commercialization of any approved product candidate. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or drugs or be able to acquire such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.
We do not currently have the infrastructure or internal capability to manufacture supplies of our product candidates for use in development and commercialization. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers for the production of our product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials under the guidance of members of our organization. We do not have long-term supply agreements. Furthermore, the raw materials for our product candidates may be sourced, in some cases, from a single-source supplier. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of any of our product candidates or any of our future product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials.
We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers for the commercial supply of any of our product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. We may be unable to maintain or establish required agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:
• the failure of the third party to manufacture our product candidates according to our schedule, or at all, including if our third-party contractors give greater priority to the supply of other products over our product candidates or otherwise do not satisfactorily perform according to the terms of the agreements between us and them;
• the reduction or termination of production or deliveries by suppliers, or the raising of prices or renegotiation of terms;
• the termination or non-renewal of arrangements or agreements by our third-party contractors at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us;
• the breach by the third-party contractors of our agreements with them;
• the failure of third-party contractors to comply with applicable regulatory requirements;
• the failure of the third party to manufacture our product candidates according to our specifications;
• the mislabeling of clinical supplies, potentially resulting in the wrong dose amounts being supplied or active drug or placebo not being properly identified;
• clinical supplies not being delivered to clinical sites on time, leading to clinical trial interruptions, or of drug supplies not being distributed to commercial vendors in a timely manner, resulting in lost sales; and
• the misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how.
We do not have complete control over all aspects of the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacturing both active drug substances and finished drug products. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, EMA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain marketing approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we do not have control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, EMA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or drugs and harm our business and results of operations.
Table of Contents
In the event that any of our manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, including due to the impact of ongoing or future pandemics, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third-party, which we may not be able to do on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. In particular, any replacement of our manufacturers could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third-party and a feasible alternative may not exist. In addition, certain of our product candidates and our own proprietary methods have never been produced or implemented outside of our company, and we may therefore experience delays to our development programs if and when we attempt to establish new third-party manufacturing arrangements for these product candidates or methods. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third-party manufacture our product candidates. If we are required to or voluntarily change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines and that the product produced is equivalent to that produced in a prior facility. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer and equivalent product could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.
Our, or a third-party’s, failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements, to do so on commercially reasonable terms and timelines, or to comply with cGMP requirements could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including without limitation:
• inability to meet our product specifications and quality requirements consistently;
• inability to initiate or continue clinical trials of our product candidates under development;
• delays in submitting regulatory applications, or receiving marketing approvals, for our product candidates, if at all;
• inability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely basis;
• loss of the cooperation of future collaborators;
• subjecting third-party manufacturing facilities or our manufacturing facilities, if any, to additional inspections by regulatory authorities;
• requirements to cease development or to recall batches of our product candidates;
• in the event of approval to market and commercialize our product candidates, an inability to meet commercial demands for our product or any other future product candidates; and
• our future profit margins.
Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.
As product candidates progress through preclinical studies and clinical trials to potential marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield and manufacturing batch size, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and generate revenue.
Table of Contents
Risks Related to Legal and Regulatory Compliance Matters
Our relationships with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs and third party payors in connection with our current and future business activities may be subject to international, federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency laws, and government price reporting, which could expose us to, among other things, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, exclusion from governmental healthcare programs, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.
Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable international, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include, among others, the following:
• the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;
• the federal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, which can be enforced by private citizens through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, and civil monetary penalties laws, prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government, with potential liability including mandatory treble damages and significant per claim penalties per false claim or statement. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;
• the federal Criminal Statute on False Statements Relating to Healthcare Matters, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up a material fact, make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items, or services;
• the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which authorizes the imposition of substantial civil monetary penalties against an entity, such as a pharmaceutical manufacturer, that engages in activities including, among others (1) knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a claim for services not provided as claimed or that is otherwise false or fraudulent in any way; (2) arranging for or contracting with an individual or entity that is excluded from participation in federal healthcare programs to provide items or services reimbursable by a federal healthcare program; (3) violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; or (4) failing to report and return a known overpayment;
• the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") prohibits, among other things, executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;
• the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") information regarding payments and other transfers of value to physicians (as defined by statute), certain non-physician providers including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and teaching hospitals, as well as information regarding ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The information reported is publicly available on a searchable website, with disclosure required annually;
Table of Contents
• analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; some state laws require biotechnology companies to comply with the biotechnology industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; and
• some state laws require biotechnology companies to report information to state agencies and/or commercial purchasers on the pricing of certain drug products that exceed a certain level as identified in the relevant statute. Some of these laws and regulations contain ambiguous requirements that government officials have not yet clarified. Given the lack of clarity in the laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent federal and state laws and regulations.
Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve on-going substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our arrangements with physicians, some of whom have had, have or may have ownership interests in us, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid (or analagous programs in jurisdictions outside the United States), integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.
Actual or perceived failures to comply with applicable data protection, privacy and security laws, regulations, standards and other requirements could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we are or may become subject to numerous state, federal and foreign laws, requirements and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and security of personal information, such as information that we may collect in connection with clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or perception of their requirements may have on our business. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal information, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, our internal policies and procedures or our contracts governing our processing of personal information could result in negative publicity, government investigations and enforcement actions, claims by third parties and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation, and financial condition.
Table of Contents
As our operations and business grow, we may become subject to or affected by new or additional data protection laws and regulations and face increased scrutiny or attention from regulatory authorities. For instance, in the U.S., most healthcare providers, including research institutions from which we may obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, or collectively, HIPAA. While we do not believe that we are currently acting as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly regulated under HIPAA, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, which govern the privacy, processing and protection of health-related and other personal information. Such laws and regulations will be subject to interpretation by various courts and other governmental authorities, thus creating potentially complex compliance issues for us and our future customers and strategic partners.
We are also or may become subject to rapidly evolving data protection laws, rules and regulations in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the EU GDPR governs certain collection and other processing activities involving personal data about individuals in the EEA. The GDPR imposes substantial fines for breaches and violations. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Further, since January 1, 2021, companies have to comply with the GDPR and also the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR.
The GDPR and UK GDPR regulate cross-border transfers of personal data out of the EEA and the UK respectively. Recent legal developments in Europe have created complexity and uncertainty regarding such transfers, including in relation to transfers to the United States. On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union or the CJEU invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework ("Privacy Shield") under which personal information could be transferred from the EEA (and the UK) to relevant self-certified U.S. entities. The CJEU further noted that reliance on the standard contractual clauses (a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism and potential alternative to the Privacy Shield) alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances and that transfers must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Successor legislation and regulation to the Privacy Shield have not been, and may never be, widely adopted in practice for data transfers in the biotechnology field. As the enforcement landscape further develops, and supervisory authorities issue further guidance on international data transfers, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines; we may have to stop using certain tools and vendors and make other operational changes; and/or it could otherwise affect the manner in which we provide our services, and could also adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.
If we or third-party CMOs, CROs or other contractors, consultants or agents fail to comply with applicable federal, state, local or foreign regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions that could affect our or any such third party’s ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and could harm or prevent sales of any affected products that we are able to commercialize, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of developing, commercializing and marketing our products. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and require that we devote substantial resources that could otherwise be used in other aspects of our business. Increasing use of social media could also give rise to liability, breaches of data security or reputational damage.
Table of Contents
Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and if we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance coverage such inability could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in an FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our products, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs. FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority investigations could potentially lead to a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources and substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients. We currently have insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels prior to marketing any of our product candidates, if approved. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost, if at all, to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Any product candidates we develop may become subject to unfavorable third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, as well as pricing regulations.
The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize an adequate return on our investment. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.
There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly. This process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.
Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific product candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of our products. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we may be able to commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be.
Table of Contents
Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as our product candidates. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, including without limitation the EEA, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.
If we are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any future product candidates from third-party payors, the adoption of those products and sales revenue will be adversely affected, which, in turn, could adversely affect the ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations may also produce hazardous waste products. We may generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.
Although we will maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the potential use of hazardous materials in the future, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials.
In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or commercialization efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.
Table of Contents
The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from trials conducted in locations outside of their jurisdiction.
We intend to conduct international clinical trials in the future. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any other comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it could result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our current or future product candidates not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.
Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.
Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion and reimbursement of the product candidate in those countries. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.
Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we or any future collaborator fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.
Table of Contents
Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they will be subject to significant post-marketing regulatory requirements and oversight.
Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a REMS in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician training and communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA, EMA or foreign regulatory authorities approve our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as on-going compliance with cGMPs and GCP for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. In addition, failure to comply with FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including without limitation:
• delays in or the rejection of product approvals;
• restrictions on our ability to conduct clinical trials, including full or partial clinical holds on ongoing or planned trials;
• restrictions on the products, manufacturers or manufacturing process;
• warning or untitled letters;
• civil and criminal penalties;
• injunctions;
• suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals;
• product seizures, detentions or import bans;
• voluntary or mandatory product recalls and publicity requirements;
• total or partial suspension of production; and
• imposition of restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements.
The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.
The FDA’s, EMA's and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.
Table of Contents
We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We currently have a limited set of compliance policies and personnel, and intend to further develop our compliance infrastructure in the future, as our clinical development programs progress. Developing a compliance infrastructure is costly and time-consuming, and even a well-designed and implemented compliance program cannot necessarily prevent all violations of relevant laws. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our product candidates, if approved. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.
The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.
If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, EMA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. For example, the U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The U.S. government has also required companies to enter into consent decrees or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.
Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies including those caused by funding shortages, mandated personnel reductions, policy changes or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.
The ability of the FDA (as well as other U.S. agencies and analogous bodies outside the United States) to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the FDA, SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, whether domestic or in jurisdictions outside of the United States, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, in recent years, the U.S. government shut down several times (including for an extended period beginning in October 2025) and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Similarly, incoming administrations have taken and may in the future take measures to reduce personnel at, and funding for, regulatory agencies including the FDA and the SEC. For example, the current administration has issued executive orders that may significantly reduce the federal workforce and could adversely affect the FDA’s ability to attract and retain qualified scientific reviewers, which could result in longer review times for our applications. If a prolonged government shut down, funding or personnel reduction, policy change, or other disruption at the FDA occurs, continues to occur and/or worsens, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to further access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Table of Contents
Separately, initially in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA implemented changes to its inspection activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates, and any resurgence or emergence of any pandemic or other widespread adverse health event may lead to further inspection delays. Regulatory authorities outside the United States have in the past and may in the future adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to such events. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs or continues, or if global health concerns prevent the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
A fast track designation from the FDA (or similar designation from a comparable foreign regulatory authority), even when granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive regulatory approval.
In February 2024, July 2024 and December 2024, respectively, we announced that the FDA granted fast track designation for atebimetinib for the treatment of patients: with PDAC who have failed one line of treatment; with PDAC in the first-line setting; and with unresectable or metastatic NRAS-mutant melanoma who have progressed on or are intolerant to PD-1/PD-L1 based immune checkpoint inhibitors. Depending on the data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, we may decide to seek additional fast track designations for atebimetinib or for other product candidates. The fast track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing product candidates that meet certain criteria. Specifically, potential drugs are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product candidate may have opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the application may be eligible for priority review. An NDA submitted for a fast track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application.
The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even where we have received fast track designation for our product candidates, such product candidates may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may also withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our related clinical development program. Furthermore, such a designation does not increase the likelihood that atebimetinib or any other product candidate that may be granted fast track designation will receive regulatory approval in the U.S. Many product candidates that have received fast track designation have ultimately failed to obtain approval.
Similar considerations as the foregoing exist with respect to any foreign regulatory authority that may grant a comparable designation to any product candidate.
We may face difficulties from changes to current regulations and future legislation.
Existing regulatory policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.
Table of Contents
For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively referred to as the ACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs; implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B Drug Pricing Program; created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.
Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.
In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes included the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, which was set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price as of January 1, 2024. Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. On August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which went into effect in 2026, and the subsequent 15 drugs effective in 2027, as well as the next set of 15 drugs that will be subject to negotiation, although the drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.
In July 2025, the OBBBA was enacted, which imposes significant reductions in the funding of the Medicaid program and restrictions for certain groups to access the ACA Marketplace. These changes are expected to decrease the number of persons enrolled in Medicaid and reduce the services covered by Medicaid, and may result in an increase in the number of individuals who are unable to access health insurance benefits and medical care, either of which could adversely affect our sales of any product candidate that we potentially commercialize.
Additionally, the Trump administration has pursued a two-fold strategy to reduce drug costs in the U.S. The administration threatened to impose significant tariffs on pharmaceutical manufacturers that do not adopt pricing policies such as most favored nation pricing, which would tie the price for drugs in the U.S. to the lowest price in a group of other countries. In response, multiple manufacturers have reportedly entered into confidential pricing agreements with the federal government. The administration is also pursuing traditional regulatory pathways to impose drug pricing policies, and published two proposed regulations in December 2025, referred to as Globe and Guard. If finalized, these regulations would implement mandatory payment models under which manufacturers of eligible drugs would be required to pay rebates to the federal government on a portion of the units of their drugs that are reimbursed by Medicare, with the rebate amount based on most favored nation pricing. While the impact of the Globe and Guard proposed regulations, if finalized, cannot yet be determined, it is likely to be significant. Even regulatory proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business. In addition, pharmaceutical pricing and marketing has long been the subject of considerable discussion among policymakers, and it is possible that Congress could enact additional laws that negatively affect the pharmaceutical industry generally and our business specifically.
Table of Contents
We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to ongoing or new pandemics or to other widespread adverse health events.
We may be subject to the UK Bribery Act 2010 (the "Bribery Act"), the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (the "FCPA"), and other anti-corruption laws, as well as export control laws, import and customs laws, trade and economic sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations.
Our operations, including our research and development, clinical trial, and (if any of our product candidates receives approval) commercial activities, whether conducted in the United States or internationally, may be subject to anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. §201, the U.S. Travel Act and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we currently or may in the future do business. The Bribery Act, the FCPA and these other (or similar) laws generally prohibit us, our employees and our intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering or providing, directly or indirectly, improper or prohibited payments or anything else of value to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Under the Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense. We and our partners may operate in jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential Bribery Act or FCPA violations, and we may participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose corrupt or illegal activities could potentially subject us to liability under the Bribery Act, FCPA or local anti-corruption laws, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted. We may also be subject to other laws and regulations from time to time governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom or elsewhere and authorities in the European Union or elsewhere, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions and embargoes on certain countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, import and customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as the Trade Control laws. There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws. If we are not in compliance with the Bribery Act, the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Likewise, any investigation of any potential violations of the Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws by the United Kingdom, United States or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations and financial condition.
We may be subject to various laws relating to foreign investment and the export of certain technologies, and our failure to comply with these laws or adequately monitor the compliance of our suppliers and others with which we do business with could subject us to substantial fines, penalties and injunctions, the imposition of which on us could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.
We may be subject to U.S. laws that regulate foreign investments in U.S. businesses and access by foreign persons to technology developed and produced in the United States. These laws include section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018, and the regulations at 31 C.F.R. Parts 800 and 801, as amended, administered by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which is being implemented in part through Commerce Department rule-making to impose new export control restrictions on “emerging and foundational technologies” yet to be fully identified. Application of these laws, including as they are implemented through regulations being developed, may negatively impact our business in various ways, including without limitation by: restricting our access to capital and markets; limiting the collaborations we may pursue; regulating the export of our products, services, and technology from the United States and abroad; increasing our costs and the time necessary to obtain required authorizations and to ensure compliance; and threat of monetary fines and other penalties for non-compliance.
Table of Contents
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and/or other intellectual property protection for our product candidates and technologies or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates, products (if any) and technology may be impaired, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.
We rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our products and technologies and to prevent third parties from copying and surpassing our achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent, trade secret or other intellectual property protection for our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses as well as our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property rights or if our intellectual property rights are inadequate for our technology or our product candidates, our competitive position could be harmed. We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and, in some cases, abroad related to our product candidates, technology platforms and their uses that are important to our business.
As of February 2, 2026, we had granted and pending patent filings directed to our product candidates and platforms. With respect to atebimetinib, we had global patent filings providing patent protection for the compound expected into at least 2041 and in the United States until 2042, as well as other pending Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT") applications that have not yet entered the national phase providing the basis for additional national phase potential patent claims directed to methods of treatment and pharmaceutical compositions expected into at least 2045, if granted (excluding any possible patent term adjustments, extensions, or terminal disclaimers, and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees, as applicable). Further, patent prosecution with respect to our pending patent applications related to our product candidates is in many cases in the early stages. With respect to our platform technology, we have granted U.S. patents expiring in 2039 directed to our Disease Cancelling Technology platform (excluding any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees, as applicable). We filed patent applications related to our platform technology only in the U.S., so it is possible that a competitor may practice outside the U.S. the aspects of our platform technology disclosed in those patent applications. We maintain other aspects of our platform technology as trade secrets, which were not disclosed in those patent applications. There can be no assurance that any of our current and future issued patents and patent applications, if any, owned by us or our future in-licensed patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents if issued will not be infringed, designed around, invalidated or rendered unenforceable by third parties, or would effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products or technologies. In addition, our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology and such third parties practice the technology in countries where such patents have issued. Composition of matter patents for pharmaceutical product candidates often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents may provide protection for any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications related to composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the USPTO or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid and enforceable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents can protect the claimed uses of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the existence, issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.
Although we may obtain licenses to issued patents in the United States and foreign countries in the future, we cannot be certain that the claims in future in-licensed U.S. pending patent applications, if any, corresponding international patent applications and patent applications in certain foreign countries will be considered patentable by the USPTO, courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in foreign countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in future in-licensed issued patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.
The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or our licensors or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:
Table of Contents
• USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process, the noncompliance with which can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, and partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction;
• patent applications may not result in any patents being issued;
• patents may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked, circumvented, found to be unenforceable or otherwise may not provide any competitive advantage;
• our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources than we or our potential licensors do and many of whom have made significant investments in competing technologies, may seek or may have already obtained patents that will limit, interfere with or block our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates;
• there may be significant pressure on the U.S. government and international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for disease treatments that prove successful, as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; and
• countries other than the United States may have patent laws less favorable to patentees than the patent law typically applied by U.S. courts, allowing foreign competitors a better opportunity to create, develop and market competing products.
The patent prosecution process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before they are granted. The examination of each national or regional patent application is an independent proceeding. As a result, patent applications in the same family may issue as patents in some jurisdictions, such as in the United States, but may issue as patents with claims of different scope or may be refused in other jurisdictions. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product or technology. For example, certain jurisdictions do not allow for patent protection with respect to method of treatment. Moreover, the scope of claims in a patent application can be significantly reduced before any claims in a patent are issued, and claim scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if our current or future patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Consequently, we do not know whether our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
It is also possible that we may not identify, or that we may not timely file on identified, patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In addition, the USPTO might require that the term of a patent issuing from a pending patent application to be disclaimed and limited to the term of another patent that is commonly owned or names a common inventor. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, directed to technology that we license, including those from our licensors, if any, and from third parties. We also may require the cooperation of our potential future licensors in order to enforce the licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We cannot be certain that patent prosecution and maintenance activities by our potential future licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. If they fail to do so, this could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we may in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize products or product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.
Table of Contents
Even if our current or future patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or potential future in-licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and any future in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant review ("PGR"), and/or inter partes review ("IPR"), or other similar proceedings in the USPTO or foreign patent offices challenging our patent rights. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity of our patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. There is also no assurance that there is no prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us. Such loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity or our patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.
In addition, although we seek to enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable or trade secret aspects of our technology platforms and research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors, licensors, and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such aspects or output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection or maintain the trade secret status of our technology platforms or research and development output. Moreover, it is possible that we may not enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with such parties, thereby potentially compromising our confidential information or otherwise subjecting it to potential loss or misuse.
As referenced above, we have filed patent applications directed to our platform technologies that involve certain of our proprietary software modules. Moreover, while software and other of our proprietary works may be protected under copyright law, we have chosen not to register any copyrights in these works, and instead, rely on the above-referenced patent applications for protection of certain modules and trade secret protection for other of our software modules. In order to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States, the copyright must be registered. Accordingly, the remedies and damages available to us for unauthorized use of our software may be limited.
If we fail to comply with our obligations in future agreements under which we may license intellectual property rights from licensors and third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with future licensors, we could lose license rights that may in the future be important to our business.
In the future, we may enter into license agreements under which we are granted rights to intellectual property that may be important to our business. We expect that any future license agreements where we in-license intellectual property would impose on us various development, regulatory and/or commercial diligence obligations, payment of milestones and/or royalties and other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we use the licensed intellectual property in an unauthorized manner or are subject to bankruptcy-related proceedings, the licensors may have the right to materially modify the terms of the licenses, such as by rendering currently exclusive licenses non-exclusive, or terminate the licenses, in which event we would not be able to market products covered by the licenses. We may also in the future enter into license agreements with third parties under which we are a sublicensee. If our sublicensor fails to comply with its obligations under its upstream license agreement with its licensor, the licensor may have the right to terminate the upstream license, which may terminate our sublicense. If this were to occur, we would no longer have rights to the applicable intellectual property unless we are able to secure our own direct license with the owner of the relevant rights, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, or at all, which may impact our ability to continue to develop and commercialize our product candidates incorporating the relevant intellectual property.
Table of Contents
We may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates or platform, and we cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist that might be enforced against our product candidates or platform in the absence of such a license. For example, our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties. Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently. These formulations may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive practice, and companies that may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive for commercializing our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their larger size and cash resources or greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire.
In addition, disputes may arise between us and any future licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:
• the scope of rights granted and obligations imposed under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
• whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
• our right to sublicense patents and other rights to third parties;
• our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;
• the amounts, if any, we owe to a potential licensor in respect of sublicense fees or income or in respect of backup product;
• our right to transfer or assign the license; and
• the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and its affiliates and sublicensees and by us and our partners and sublicensees.
If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our future licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may not be able to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.
In addition, certain of our agreements may limit or delay our ability to consummate certain transactions, may impact the value of those transactions, or may limit our ability to pursue certain activities. For example, we may in the future enter into license agreements that are not assignable or transferable, or that require the licensor’s express consent in order for an assignment or transfer to take place.
Table of Contents
The patent protection and patent prosecution for some of our product candidates may be dependent on our future licensors and third parties.
We or our future potential licensors may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, we may miss potential opportunities to strengthen our patent position. It is possible that defects as to form in the preparation or filing of our potential future in-licensed patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope, or requests for patent term adjustments. If we or our future potential licensors fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our future potential licensors are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form, preparation, prosecution, or enforcement of our future potential in-licensed patents or patent applications, such patents may be invalid and/or unenforceable, and such applications may never result in valid, enforceable patents. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.
As a future potential licensee of third parties, we would rely on third parties to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the licensed intellectual property under some of our future license agreements. We would not have primary control over these activities for certain of our patents or patent applications and other intellectual property rights. We cannot be certain that such activities by third parties have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. Future potential licensors may have the right to control enforcement of our future potential licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we will require the cooperation of our future licensors. We cannot be certain that our future licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business. If any of our future potential licensors or future collaborators fail to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for patents directed to any of our product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.
In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have acquired or licensed from third parties in the future, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our potential licensors and their counsel that took place prior to us assuming control over patent prosecution.
Technology we may acquire or license from various third parties in the future may be subject to retained rights. Our future licensors may retain certain rights under their agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying technology for use in fields other than the fields licensed to us or for use in noncommercial academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the technology, and to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the technology. It may be difficult to monitor whether our future licensors may limit their use of the technology to these uses, and we could incur substantial expenses to enforce our rights to our licensed technology in the event of misuse.
Table of Contents
Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. Claims by third parties that we infringe or misappropriate their proprietary rights may result in liability for damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts.
Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringement or misappropriation of the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. Because the intellectual property landscape in the industry in which we participate is rapidly evolving and interdisciplinary, it is difficult to conclusively assess our ability to freely make, use, and sell our products without infringing third party rights. Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidates and products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical industry, including patent infringement lawsuits, oppositions, reexaminations, IPR proceedings and PGR proceedings before the USPTO and/or foreign patent offices. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates, as well as related to our platform.
As the biopharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates or platform may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. Because patent applications are maintained as confidential for a certain period of time, until the relevant application is published we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of any of our product candidates, and we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for a product candidate or technology covered by our pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product candidate or technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our product candidates, products (if approved) or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents relating to such technologies. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe.
In addition, identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our product candidates or platform is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect. For example, we may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.
Further, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time-consuming and could:
• result in costly litigation that may cause negative publicity;
• divert the time and attention of our technical personnel and management;
• cause development delays;
• prevent us from commercializing any of our product candidates until the asserted patent expires or is held finally invalid or unenforceable or not infringed in a court of law;
• require us to develop non-infringing technology, which may not be possible on a cost-effective basis;
• subject us to significant liability to third parties; or
Table of Contents
• require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements, that may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or that might be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same technology.
Although no third party has asserted a claim of patent infringement against us to date, others may hold proprietary rights that could prevent our product candidates from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin activities relating to our product candidates or processes could subject us to potential liability for damages, including treble damages if we were determined to willfully infringe, and require us to obtain a license to manufacture or develop our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee resources from our business. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Moreover, even if we or our future strategic partners were able to obtain a license, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. In addition, we cannot be certain that we could redesign our product candidates or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary.
Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent or trade secret litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.
Moreover, if our product candidates or platform are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, these third parties may assert infringement claims against our future licensees and other parties with whom we have business relationships, and we may be required to indemnify those parties for any damages they suffer as a result of these claims. The claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of such licensees and other parties regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of those parties or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our future licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our future in-licensed issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.
Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our, or our future licensors’, patents, trademarks or other intellectual property. To prevent infringement or other violations, we and/or our future licensors may be required to file claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Further, our future licensors may need to file such claims, but elect not to file them. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our future licensors or potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty or written description, non-patentable subject matter (laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea), obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent intentionally withheld material information from the USPTO or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could challenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor to the USPTO and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable. With respect to challenges to the validity of our patents, there might be invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution.
Table of Contents
If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on such product candidate. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications or those of our future licensors is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business. Even if a defendant does not prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, our patent claims may be construed in a manner that would limit our ability to enforce such claims against the defendant and others.
Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights, particularly those in a foreign jurisdiction, may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. Enforcing our intellectual property rights against third parties may also cause such third parties to file other counterclaims against us, which could be costly to defend, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and could require us to pay substantial damages, cease the sale of certain products or enter into a license agreement and pay royalties (which may not be possible on commercially reasonable terms or at all). We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.
Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings.
Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our common shares to decline.
During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing products, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of shares of our Class A common stock may decline. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Derivation or interference proceedings may be necessary to determine priority of inventions, and an unfavorable outcome may require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights from the prevailing party.
Derivation or interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or our future licensors, or declared by the USPTO or similar proceedings in foreign patent offices, may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our or our potential future licensors’ patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our, or our licensors’, defense of such proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.
Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.
In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "Leahy-Smith Act") was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This requires us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application.
Table of Contents
Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (1) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license.
The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that (i) affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, (ii) redefine prior art, and (iii) provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including PGR, IPR, and derivation proceedings. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.
Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would have been insufficient to invalidate the claim if presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our future licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Changes in U.S. patent law, or laws in other countries, could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.
As is the case with many other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves a high degree of technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Further, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents.
In addition, Congress or other foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our or our future licensors’ ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our or our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future.
Table of Contents
We or our future licensors may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our or our future in-licensed patents and other intellectual property.
We may also be subject to claims that former employees or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we or our future licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our future licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distraction to management and other employees.
Our future licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that our future licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of any patents we may in-license. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.
In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, advisors, consultants, contractors and other third parties, including certain service providers, who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, 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 effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.
Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the term of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents directed to our product candidates are obtained, once the patent term has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of product candidates, patents directed to our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval, if any, of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. A maximum of one patent may be extended per FDA-approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we or our licensors may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.
Table of Contents
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
Filing, prosecuting and defending patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we or our licensors have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.
Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many foreign countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our, or our licensors’ patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights. Proceedings to enforce our, or our potential future licensors’, patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our or our potential future licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our or our potential future licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We, or our licensors, may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our potential future licensors initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our, or our potential future licensors’, efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or in-license.
Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we, or our licensors, are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements imposed by regulations and governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to the USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on third parties to pay these fees when due. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. While an inadvertent lapse, including due to the effect of a widespread adverse health event, our patent maintenance vendors or law firms, can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications relating to our product candidates, our competitive position would be adversely affected.
Table of Contents
If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.
In addition to seeking patent protection for some of our technology and product candidates, we rely on the protection of our trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information to maintain our competitive position, especially with respect to our technology platform. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a security breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. Because we expect to rely on third parties in the development and manufacture of our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Our reliance on third parties may require us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.
We have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with third parties who are given access to them, such as our corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. With our consultants, contractors and outside scientific collaborators, these agreements typically include invention assignment obligations. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Further, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. In addition, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We may need to share our proprietary information, including trade secrets, with future business partners, collaborators, contractors and others located in countries at heightened risk of theft of trade secrets, including through direct intrusion by private parties or foreign actors, and those affiliated with or controlled by state actors.
Moreover, third parties may still obtain this information or may come upon this or similar information independently, and we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position would be harmed. If we or our licensors do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.
We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach, in each case which could materially harm our business.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or alleged trade secrets of third parties or competitors or are in breach of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements with our competitors or their former employers.
As is common in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, we employ individuals and engage the services of consultants who previously worked for other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information, trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers, or that our consultants have used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former or current clients. 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 intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team and other employees.
Table of Contents
If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.
We use and will continue to use registered and/or unregistered trademarks or trade names to brand and market ourselves and our products. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners, prescribers or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.
Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with a product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe and other jurisdictions outside of the United States. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, it may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark.
We use third-party open source software, which could negatively affect our ability to offer our solutions and subject us to litigation or other actions.
We use open source software licensed to us by third-party authors under “open source” licenses in our platform and solutions and expect to continue to use such open source software in the future. Use and distribution of open source software may entail greater risks than use of third-party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide support, warranties, indemnification or other contractual protections regarding infringement claims or the quality of the code. To the extent that our platform depends upon the successful operation of open source software, any undetected errors or defects in this open source software could prevent the deployment or impair the functionality of our platform, delay introductions of new solutions, result in a failure of our platform, and injure our reputation. For example, undetected errors or defects in open source software could render it vulnerable to breaches or security attacks, and, as a result, possibly make our systems more vulnerable to data breaches. In addition, the public availability of such software may make it easier for others to compromise our platform.
Further, there are uncertainties regarding the proper interpretation of and compliance with open source licenses, and there is a risk that such licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to use such open source software, and consequently to provide or distribute our platform and solutions. Some open source licenses contain express requirements that we make available source code for modifications or derivative works we create based upon the type of open source software we use, or grant other licenses to our intellectual property. If we combine our proprietary software with open source software in a certain manner, we could, under certain open source licenses, be required to release the source code of our proprietary software to the public. This would allow our competitors to create similar offerings with lower development cost, effort and time and ultimately could result in a loss of our competitive advantages. Alternatively, to avoid the public release of the affected portions of our source code, we could be required to expend substantial time and resources to re-engineer some or all of our software.
Table of Contents
Despite our efforts to monitor our use of open source software to avoid subjecting our platform to conditions we do not intend, there is a risk that open source licenses could be construed in a way that could impose unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to provide or distribute our platform. Additionally, we may from time to time face claims from third parties claiming ownership of, or seeking to enforce the terms of, an open source license, including by demanding release of source code for the open source software, derivative works or our proprietary source code that was developed using, or that is distributed with, such open source software. These claims could also result in litigation and could require us to make our proprietary software source code freely available, devote additional research and development resources to re-engineer our platform, seek costly licenses from third parties, pay monetary damages to the owner of the copyright in the relevant open source software or otherwise incur additional costs and expenses, any of which could result in reputational harm and would have a negative effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, if the license terms for the open source software we utilize change, we may be forced to re-engineer our platform, incur additional costs to comply with the changed license terms or replace the affected open source software. Although we have implemented policies to regulate the use and incorporation of open source software into our platform and solutions, we cannot be certain that such policies will be effective and that we have not incorporated open source software in our platform and solutions in a manner that is inconsistent with such policies.
Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.
The degree of future protection afforded by intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example and without limitation:
• others may be able to develop products that are similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we may own or license;
• we or our potential future licensors might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents or patent application that we may own or license;
• we or our potential future licensors might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;
• others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
• it is possible that our, or our future licensors’, pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;
• future issued patents that we own or license may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;
• our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;
• we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; and
• the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.
Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.
Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing our Growth
If we are unable to establish sales or marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell or market our product candidates, we may not be able to successfully sell or market our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval.
We currently do not have and have never had a marketing or sales team. In order to commercialize any product candidates, if approved, we must build marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services for each of the territories in which we may have approval to sell or market our product candidates. We may not be successful in accomplishing these required tasks.
Table of Contents
Establishing an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates will be expensive and time-consuming, and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities could adversely impact the commercialization of any of our product candidates that we may obtain approval to market, if we do not have arrangements in place with third parties to provide such services on our behalf. Alternatively, if we choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems, we will be required to negotiate and enter into arrangements with such third parties relating to the proposed collaboration. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates that may receive regulatory approval or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. Moreover, even if we do successfully enter such arrangements with third parties, any of those third parties may fail to perform in a satisfactory or timely manner, if at all. If we are unable to successfully commercialize our approved product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.
Our success is highly dependent on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled executive officers and employees.
To succeed, we must recruit, retain, manage and motivate qualified clinical, scientific, technical, administrative and management personnel, and we face significant competition for experienced personnel. We are highly dependent on the principal members of our management and scientific and medical staff. If we do not succeed in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly at the management level, it could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and harm our results of operations. In particular, the loss of one or more of our executive officers could be detrimental to us if we cannot recruit suitable replacements in a timely manner. The competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology field is intense and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary, including bioinformatics and computational biologist specialists, for the future success of our business. We could in the future have difficulty attracting experienced personnel to our company and may be required to expend significant financial resources in our employee recruitment and retention efforts. We currently do not maintain "key person" insurance for any of our executive officers (other than our chief executive officer) or other employees, and such insurance, even if in place, may not be adequate.
Many of the other biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide a wide range of opportunities and better prospects for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover, develop and commercialize (if approved) our product candidates will be limited and the potential for successfully growing our business will be harmed.
In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, we will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.
As of December 31, 2025, we had 53 full-time employees, including 37 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, including operating as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including without limitation:
• identifying, recruiting, integrating, maintaining and motivating additional employees;
• managing our internal development efforts effectively, including the clinical, FDA, EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory agencies’ review process of atebimetinib and any other product candidates that we develop, while complying with any contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties we may have; and
• improving our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures.
Our future financial performance and our ability to successfully develop and, if approved, commercialize atebimetinib and any other product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.
Table of Contents
We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including key aspects of clinical development and manufacturing. We cannot assure you that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by third party service providers is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing approval of any current or future product candidates or otherwise advance our business. We cannot assure you that we will be able to manage our existing third-party service providers or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.
If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and/or engaging additional third-party service providers, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize atebimetinib and any other current or future product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.
A variety of risks associated with operating internationally could materially adversely affect our business.
We currently have limited international operations, but our business plans incorporate potential international expansion, including the planned addition of international clinical trial sites, potential engagement with a collaborator based internationally, or if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:
• multiple, conflicting and changing laws and regulations, such as privacy regulations, tax laws, export and import restrictions, employment laws, regulatory requirements and other governmental approvals, permits and licenses;
• failure by us to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for the use of our product candidates in various countries;
• additional potentially relevant third-party patent rights;
• complexities and difficulties in obtaining intellectual property protection and enforcing our intellectual property rights;
• difficulties in staffing and managing foreign operations;
• complexities associated with managing multiple payor reimbursement regimes, government payors or patient self-pay systems;
• limits in our ability to penetrate international markets;
• financial risks, such as longer payment cycles, difficulty collecting accounts receivable, the impact of local and regional financial crises on demand and payment for our product candidates and exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations;
• natural disasters, political and economic instability including wars, terrorism and political unrest (for example, the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as well as in the Middle East), outbreak of disease (for example, COVID-19 and other pandemics), boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions;
• increased susceptibility to trade disputes between nations, including from the imposition of tariffs, which may adversely impact operations (such as conducting ex-U.S. clinical trials or sourcing materials internationally);
• certain expenses including, among others, expenses for travel, translation and insurance; and
• regulatory and compliance risks that relate to maintaining accurate information and control over sales (if any) and activities that may fall within the purview of the FCPA, its books and records provisions, its anti-bribery provisions or other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws.
Any of these factors, among others, could significantly limit or harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our results of operations.
Acquisitions, joint ventures or other transactions involving third parties could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our stockholders and otherwise harm our business.
Table of Contents
We have in the past and may in the future acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue strategic alliances, joint ventures, licensing arrangements, supply agreements or investments in complementary businesses. We have limited or in some cases no experience in completing such transactions. Any of these transactions could be material to our financial condition and operating results and expose us to many risks, including without limitation:
• disruption in our relationships with future customers or with current or future distributors or suppliers as a result of such a transaction;
• unanticipated liabilities related to acquired companies;
• difficulties integrating acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business;
• diversion of management time and focus from operating our business to acquisition integration or other collaboration challenges;
• increases in our expenses and reductions in our cash available for operations and other uses;
• possible write-offs or impairment charges relating to acquired businesses;
• disputes regarding intellectual property and/or the scope and interpretation of licensing terms; and
• inability to develop a sales force for any additional product candidates.
Potential foreign transactions involve unique risks in addition to those mentioned above, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries.
Additionally, the anticipated benefit of any such transaction may not materialize. For example, future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of additional debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future joint ventures or acquisitions, or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.
We have broad discretion in the use of our cash reserves and may not use them effectively.
Our management has broad discretion to use our cash reserves and could use them in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance value, for example by prioritizing the development of certain product candidates and / or medical indications over others that could have been more successful. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business and/or delay the development of our product candidates. Additionally, pending their use, we may invest our cash reserves in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.
Risks Related to Ownership of Our Class A Common Stock
We may be unable to maintain an active, liquid and orderly trading market for our Class A common stock and, as a result, it may be difficult for you to sell your shares of our Class A common stock.
The market value of our Class A common stock has in the past decreased from time to time, and may in the future decrease from time to time, and you may not be able to resell your shares of our Class A common stock at or above the price you purchased them. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. The lack of an active market may also reduce the fair market value of your shares. Furthermore, an inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares of our Class A common stock and may impair our ability to enter into strategic collaborations or acquire companies, technologies or other assets by using our shares of Class A common stock as consideration.
The price of our stock has been and may in the future be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
The trading price of our Class A common stock has in the past been, and in the future is likely to be, highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which we cannot control. The stock market in general, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.
Table of Contents
Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our Class A common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section, elsewhere in this filing, and in our other SEC filings, these factors include:
• the timing and results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates or those of our competitors;
• the success of competitive products or announcements by potential competitors of their product development efforts;
• regulatory actions with respect to our products or our competitors’ products;
• actual or anticipated changes in our growth rate relative to our competitors;
• regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries;
• developments or disputes concerning patent applications, issued patents or other proprietary rights;
• the recruitment or departure of key personnel;
• announcements by us or our competitors of significant acquisitions, strategic collaborations, joint ventures, collaborations or capital commitments;
• actual or anticipated changes in estimates as to financial results, development timelines or recommendations by securities analysts;
• fluctuations in the valuation of companies perceived by investors to be comparable to us;
• market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector;
• changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;
• share price and volume fluctuations attributable to inconsistent trading volume levels of our shares;
• announcement or expectation of additional financing efforts;
• sales of our Class A common stock by us, our insiders or our other stockholders;
• expiration of market stand-off or lock-up agreements; and
• general economic, industry and market conditions, including the effects of recession or slow economic growth in the U.S. and abroad, interest rates, tariffs, inflation, fuel prices, international currency fluctuations, corruption, political instability, acts of war, acts of terrorism, ongoing or future military conflicts, and ongoing or future pandemics or other public health crises.
The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, could have a dramatic and adverse impact on the market price of our Class A common stock.
If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports, or if they publish adverse or misleading research or reports, regarding us, our business or our market, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our Class A common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us, our business or our market. If any of the analysts who cover us issue adverse or misleading research or reports regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property, our stock performance or our market, or if our results of operations fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly (as has happened in the past), we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.
Table of Contents
Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.
Our executive officers, directors, holders of 5% or more of our capital stock and their respective affiliates beneficially own a significant percentage of our voting stock and these stockholders will be able to influence us through this ownership position. These stockholders, if they were to vote their shares in the same or a similar manner as one another, may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents or approval of any merger, sale of assets or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our Class A common stock that you may feel are in your best interest as one of our stockholders. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with your interests or the interests of other stockholders and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including seeking a premium value for their Class A common stock, and might affect the prevailing market price for our Class A common stock.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our Class A and/or Class B common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our Class A and/or Class B common stock, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our Class A common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. The shares of Class A common stock that were sold in the initial public offering and shares of Class A common stock that have been or will be sold under any registration statement declared effective by the SEC are, or will be, as applicable, freely transferable without restrictions or further registration under the Securities Act, except for any shares acquired by our affiliates, as defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. The remaining shares of our Class A common stock that are outstanding are either unrestricted or restricted as a result of securities laws. In addition, there are shares of Class A common stock that are either subject to outstanding options or reserved for future issuance under our existing equity incentive plans and may become eligible for future sale subject to vesting, and Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act. If these additional shares of Class A common stock are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the trading price of our Class A common stock could decline.
In addition, in the future, we may issue additional shares of Class A common stock, or other equity or debt securities convertible into Class A common stock, in connection with a financing, acquisition, employee arrangement or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and could cause the price of our Class A common stock to decline.
We do not currently intend to pay dividends on our Class A common stock and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation of the value of our Class A common stock.
We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our equity securities. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings, if any, for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future, if ever. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to any appreciation in the value of our Class A common stock, which is not certain.
Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law might discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management and, therefore, depress the market price of our Class A common stock.
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could depress the market price of our Class A common stock by acting to discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management that the stockholders of our company may deem advantageous. These provisions, among other things:
• establish a classified Board so that not all members of our Board are elected at one time;
• permit only the Board to establish the number of directors and fill vacancies on the Board;
• provide that directors may only be removed “for cause” and only with the approval of two-thirds of our stockholders;
• authorize the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock that our Board could use to implement a stockholder rights plan (also known as a “poison pill”);
Table of Contents
• eliminate the ability of our stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders;
• prohibit stockholder action by written consent, which requires all stockholder actions to be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;
• prohibit cumulative voting;
• authorize our Board to unilaterally amend the bylaws (as, for example, the Board did in February 2024);
• establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our Board or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at annual stockholder meetings; and
• require a super-majority vote of stockholders to amend some provisions described above.
In addition, Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL") prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person which together with its affiliates owns, or within the last three years has owned, 15% of our voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner.
Any provision of our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws or Delaware or other applicable law that has the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our capital stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our Class A common stock.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provides for an exclusive forum in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for certain disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, in the event that the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware or other state courts of the State of Delaware) is the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws, or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine; provided that, the exclusive forum provision will not apply to suits brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction; and provided further that, if and only if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismisses any such action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, such action may be brought in another state or federal court sitting in the State of Delaware. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws also provide that a federal district court of the United States of America is the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause or causes of action against any defendant arising under the Securities Act. Such provision is intended to benefit and may be enforced by us, our officers, directors, employees and agents, including the underwriters and any other professional or entity who has prepared or certified any part of this filing or our other SEC filings. Nothing in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws preclude stockholders that assert claims under the Exchange Act from bringing such claims in state or federal court, subject to applicable law.
Table of Contents
We believe these provisions may benefit us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law and federal securities laws by chancellors and judges, as applicable, particularly experienced in resolving corporate disputes, efficient administration of cases on a more expedited schedule relative to other forums and protection against the burdens of multi-forum litigation. This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, other employees, agents or stockholders, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims or make such lawsuits more costly for stockholders, although our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Furthermore, the enforceability of similar choice of forum provisions in other companies’ certificates of incorporation has been challenged in legal proceedings, and it is possible that a court could find these types of provisions to be inapplicable or unenforceable. While the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive-forum provisions, and there can be no assurance that such provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions. If a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
General Risks
Our information technology systems or use of artificial intelligence, or those of any of our CROs, manufacturers, other contractors, consultants, collaborators or potential future collaborators, may fail or suffer security breaches or other unauthorized or improper access to, use of, or destruction of our proprietary or confidential data, employee data, or personal data, which could result in additional costs, loss of revenue, significant liabilities, harm to our brand and material disruption of our operations.
Our information technology systems and those of our current and any future CROs, CMOs and other contractors, consultants, collaborators, agents and third-party service providers, are vulnerable to attack, interruption and damage from computer viruses (e.g. ransomware), cybersecurity threats, malicious code, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failure, phishing attacks and other social engineering schemes, employee theft or misuse, human error, fraud, denial or degradation of service attacks, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors or unauthorized access or use by persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. We have also outsourced elements of our information technology infrastructure, and as a result a number of third-party vendors may or could have access to our confidential information.
The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyberattacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased and evolved. We may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence. If we or our third-party vendors were to experience a significant security breach of our or their information systems or data, the costs associated with the investigation, remediation and potential notification of the breach to counter-parties and data subjects could be material. In addition, our remediation efforts may not be successful. If we do not allocate and effectively manage the resources necessary to build and sustain the proper technology and cybersecurity infrastructure, we could suffer significant business disruption, including transaction errors, supply chain or manufacturing interruptions, processing inefficiencies, data loss or the loss of or damage to intellectual property or other proprietary information.
We and our service providers are from time to time subject to cyberattacks and security incidents. While we do not believe that we have experienced any significant system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations or result in the unauthorized acquisition of or access to our trade secrets, health-related or other personal information or other proprietary or sensitive information, it could result in a material disruption of our drug discovery and development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other similar disruptions, and it may be necessary to notify individuals, governmental authorities, supervisory bodies, the media and other parties pursuant to data privacy and security laws. Notifications and follow-up actions related to a security breach could impact our reputation and cause us to incur significant costs, including legal expenses and remediation costs.
Table of Contents
For example, the loss of clinical trial data from past, present or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the lost data. We also rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could be exposed to litigation and governmental investigations, the further development and potential commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed or halted, and we could be subject to significant fines or penalties for any noncompliance with certain state, federal, local and/or international privacy and security laws.
In addition, we (and likely many of our third-party vendors, agents and other collaborators) are adopting and exploring the use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in our business. As an emerging and rapidly evolving technology, our (and, to the extent applicable, our third-party vendors', agents' and other collaborators') use of AI presents risks that could adversely affect our operations, information security and reputation. For example, AI systems may produce inaccurate or flawed outputs due to improper algorithms, or insufficient and/or erroneous training data. Reliance on flawed outputs could result in lower quality decision-making or prevent us from effectively utilizing AI in our business. We may also become vulnerable to operational disruptions if any AI technologies that we use experience downtimes or are compromised by cyberattacks. Moreover, if any of our confidential or proprietary information is integrated into public AI systems, whether purposefully or accidentally, it could result in the loss of confidentiality (including with respect to intellectual property) or other premature disclosure issues that negatively impact our business operations. If we (or our third-party agents and other collaborators) do not effectively implement guardrails and train staff on the safe and proper use of AI, or if staff fail to effectively adhere to established guardrails and training on the use of AI, we may experience adverse effects on our business, including without limitation data breaches, the loss of confidential information (including our intellectual property), unintentional disclosure of personal data, reputational harm, or other misuse of our proprietary information.
Our insurance policies may not be adequate to compensate us for the potential losses arising from any such disruption, failure or security breach. In addition, such insurance may not be available to us in the future on economically reasonable terms, or at all. Further, our insurance may not cover all claims made against us and could have high deductibles in any event, and defending a suit, regardless of its merit or ultimate disposition, could be costly and divert management attention.
Additionally, there can be no assurance that our cybersecurity risk management program and processes, including our policies, controls or procedures, will be fully implemented, complied with or effective in protecting our systems and information. See Part I. Item 1C. "Cybersecurity" contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.
Our operations are vulnerable to interruption by fire, severe weather conditions, power loss, telecommunications failure, terrorist activity, military conflict, future pandemics and other events beyond our control, which could harm our business.
Our facilities are located in regions which experience severe weather from time to time. We have not undertaken a systematic analysis of the potential consequences to our business and financial results from a major tornado, flood, fire, earthquake, power loss, terrorist activity, geopolitical conflicts, military conflict, future pandemics, public health crises or other disasters and do not have a recovery plan for such disasters. In addition, we do not carry sufficient insurance to compensate us for actual losses from interruption of our business that may occur, and any losses or damages incurred by us could harm our business. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.
We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our Class A common stock less attractive to investors.
We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the "JOBS Act"). For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:
• being permitted to provide only two years of audited financial statements, in addition to any required unaudited financial statements, with correspondingly reduced “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” disclosure in this and other periodic reports;
• not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act");
Table of Contents
• not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the communication of critical audit matters in the auditor’s report on financial statements;
• reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements; and
• exemptions from the requirements of holding nonbinding advisory stockholder votes on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved.
We cannot predict if investors will find our Class A common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our Class A common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our Class A common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.
We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have more than $1.235 billion in annual revenue; (2) the date we qualify as a “large accelerated filer,” with at least $700 million of equity securities held by non-affiliates; (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period; and (4) the last day of the fiscal year ending after the fifth anniversary of our initial public offering.
Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We intend to take advantage of the extended transition period for adopting new or revised accounting standards under the JOBS Act as an emerging growth company. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with public company effective dates.
The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, result in more litigation and divert management’s attention.
As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), the listing requirements of Nasdaq and other applicable securities laws, rules and regulations. Complying with these laws, rules and regulations has increased and will continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and results of operations. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control and procedures on a quarterly basis. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight will be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations. We may also need to hire additional employees or engage outside consultants to comply with these requirements, which will increase our costs and expenses.
In addition, changing laws, rules, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, rules, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, rules, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, rules, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory or other governmental authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be adversely affected.
These new rules and regulations may make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and, in the future, we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our Board, particularly to serve on our audit committee and compensation committee, and qualified executive officers.
Table of Contents
By disclosing information in this filing and in future filings required of a public company, our business and financial condition will become more visible, which we believe may result in threatened or actual litigation, including by competitors and other third parties. If those claims are successful, our business could be seriously harmed. Even if the claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, the time and resources needed to resolve them could divert our management’s resources and seriously harm our business.
If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our Class A common stock.
Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.
We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an emerging growth company or a non-accelerated filer (as defined under applicable SEC rules), our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting could lead to restatements of our financial statements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.
We may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management attention.
The market price of our Class A common stock has been and may in the future be volatile and, in the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.
New tax legislation may impact our results of operations and financial condition.
The U.S. government has enacted, and may in the future enact further, significant changes to the taxation of business entities including, among others, an increase in the corporate income tax rate, an increase in the tax rate applicable to the global intangible low-taxed income and elimination of certain exemptions, and the imposition of minimum taxes or surtaxes on certain types of income. For example, the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act, among other changes, introduced a 15% corporate minimum tax on certain United States corporations and a 1% excise tax on certain stock redemptions by United States corporations. Additionally, in July 2025, the Act to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14 was enacted, which for example (and among other things) extends certain tax cuts while eliminating certain others. The likelihood and / or potential impact of these or other further changes being enacted or implemented is unclear. We are currently unable to predict whether such changes will occur, and if they do occur, what their scope will be. If such changes were to be enacted or implemented, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate impact on our business.
