IDRA Idera Pharmaceuticals Inc

Table of Contents

Washington, D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

​

☒ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

​

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2020

​

or

​

☐TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934             

​

Commission File Number: 001-31918

​

​

(484) 348-1600

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

​

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

​

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.)    Yes  ☐    No   ☒

​

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $52.7 million based on the last sale price of the registrant’s common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 30, 2020 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter).

​

As of February 28, 2021, the registrant had 42,257,456 shares of common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2021 annual meeting of stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K where indicated. Such definitive proxy statement will be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the year ended December 31, 2020.

​

​

Table of Contents

IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

FORM 10-K

​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

__________________________________

​

Unless the context otherwise indicates, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Idera,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

​

IMO^® and Idera^® are our trademarks. All other trademarks and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners.

​

All share and per share amounts, including the exercise or conversion price of any of our securities, reflect, as applicable, the occurrence of a 1-for-8 reverse split of our common stock that occurred on July 27, 2018.

​

Table of Contents

NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

​

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Form 10-K”) and the documents we incorporate by reference contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included or incorporated in this report regarding our strategy, future operations, clinical trials, collaborations, intellectual property, cash resources, financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. The words “believes,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “plans,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “could,” “should,” “potential,” “likely,” “projects,” “continue,” “will,” “schedule,” “would” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. We cannot guarantee that we actually will achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which may be beyond our control, and which may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of the Company to be materially different from future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

​

There are a number of important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by forward-looking statements. These important factors include those set forth below under Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” and in our other disclosures and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These factors and the other cautionary statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents we incorporate by reference should be read as being applicable to all related forward-looking statements whenever they appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents we incorporate by reference.

​

In addition, any forward-looking statements represent our estimates only as of the date that this Annual Report on Form 10-K is filed with the SEC and should not be relied upon as representing our estimates as of any subsequent date. All forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date hereof, and are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary notice. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Clinical Development

​

Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125)

​

Tilsotolimod is a synthetic phosphorothioate oligonucleotide that acts as a direct agonist of TLR9 to stimulate the innate and adaptive immune systems. Tilsotolimod is being developed for administration via intratumoral injection in combination with systemically administered checkpoint inhibitors and costimulation therapies for the treatment of various solid tumors, including (i) anti-PD1 refractory metastatic melanoma in combination with ipilimumab, (ii) microsatellite stable (“MSS”) colorectal cancer (“CRC”) in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and (iii) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (“HNSCC”) in combination with ABBV-368 and other combinations. We refer to our tilsotolimod development program as the ILLUMINATE development program. See additional information under the heading “Collaborative Alliances” for information on the development of tilsotolimod in collaboration with AbbVie Inc. (“AbbVie”) for patients with HNSCC.

Advancements in cancer immunotherapy have included the approval of multiple checkpoint inhibitors, which are therapies that target mechanisms by which tumor cells evade detection by the immune system. Despite these advancements, many patients fail to respond to these therapies. Published data suggests the lack of response to checkpoint inhibition is related to a non-immunogenic tumor microenvironment. We believe TLR9 agonists may be useful in melanoma and other solid tumor types that are refractory to anti-PD1 treatment due, in part, to low mutation load and low dendritic cell infiltration. Because TLR9 agonists, such as tilsotolimod, stimulate the immune system, we believe the intratumoral injection of tilsotolimod activates a local immune response in the injected tumor, which may complement the effect of the systemically administered checkpoint inhibitors.

​

Melanoma

​

Melanoma is a cancer that begins in a type of skin cell called melanocytes. While melanoma is one of the least common types of skin cancer, it has a poor prognosis when not detected and treated early. As is the case in many forms of cancer, melanoma becomes more difficult to treat once the disease has spread, or metastasized, beyond the skin to other parts of the body. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 106,000 people in the United States will be diagnosed with invasive melanoma in 2021. Immunotherapies known as checkpoint inhibitors have changed the treatment of advanced melanoma and have become the standard of care, with anti-PD-1 agents being the most commonly used immunotherapy in the first-line setting. These agents work by increasing the ability of the body’s immune system to help detect and fight cancer cells. However, due to primary or acquired resistance mechanisms that exclude or inhibit anti-tumor immune cells, as many as 60% of patients do not benefit from this type of therapy, and up to one-third of initial responders develop resistance to the therapy and ultimately experience disease progression. Today, these refractory patients are left with few options for further treatment, paving the way for novel investigational therapies such as tilsotolimod. 

​

We are currently developing tilsotolimod for use in combination with checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of patients with anti-PD1 refractory metastatic melanoma. Tilsotolimod has received Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of melanoma Stages IIb to IV and Fast Track designation for the treatment of anti-PD1 refractory metastatic melanoma in combination with ipilimumab therapy from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

​

​

ILLUMINATE-301 - Phase 3 Trial of Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125) in Combination with Ipilimumab in Patients with Anti-PD1 Refractory Metastatic Melanoma

​

In the first quarter of 2018, we initiated a Phase 3 trial of the tilsotolimod–ipilimumab combination in patients with anti-PD-1 refractory metastatic melanoma, which we refer to as ILLUMINATE-301. This trial, which completed target enrollment of 454 patients in March 2020, will compare the results of the tilsotolimod–ipilimumab combination to those of ipilimumab alone in a 1:1 randomization. The family of primary endpoints of the trial consists of objective response rate (“ORR”) by blinded independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (“RECIST v1.1”) and median overall survival (“OS”). We believe positive results in either of the primary endpoints could lead to approval in the United States. Key secondary endpoints include

Table of Contents

durable response rate, duration of response, median time to response, median progression free survival (“PFS”) and patient-reported outcomes using a validated scale. ILLUMINATE-301 is being monitored by an Independent Data Monitoring Committee.

​

 As further discussed below under the heading “Collaborative Alliances,” in May 2018, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with BMS under which BMS has agreed to supply YERVOY® (ipilimumab), at its cost and for no charge to us, for use in ILLUMINATE-301.

​

​

ILLUMINATE-204 - Phase 1/2 Trial of Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125) in Combination with Ipilimumab or Pembrolizumab in Patients with Anti-PD1 Refractory Metastatic Melanoma

​

In December 2015, we initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of intratumoral tilsotolimod in combination with ipilimumab in patients with anti-PD-1 refractory metastatic melanoma, which we refer to as ILLUMINATE-204. We subsequently amended the trial protocol to include an additional treatment arm to study the combination of tilsotolimod with pembrolizumab, an anti-PD1 antibody marketed as Keytruda® by Merck & Co., Inc., in the same patient population.

​

The primary objectives of the Phase 1 portion of the trial included characterizing the safety of the combinations and determining the recommended Phase 2 dose. A secondary objective of the Phase 1 portion of the trial was to describe the antitumor activity of tilsotolimod when administered intratumorally in combination with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab. Objectives of the Phase 2 portion of the trial included evaluation of the ORR of the tilsotolimod-ipilimumab combination using RECIST v1.1 criteria and immune-related response criteria (“irRC”), median OS, other efficacy measures, and to continue to characterize the safety of the combination.

​

Final topline data from the trial was reported in April 2020. A total of 52 subjects were treated with the tilsotolimod-ipilimumab combination at the recommended Phase 2 dose of 8 mg tilsotolimod. Of the 49 subjects evaluable for efficacy, 11 had a confirmed response per RECIST v1.1, representing an ORR of 22.4%. Additionally, 35 of the 49 patients achieved stable disease or better, representing a disease control rate of 71.4%. Durable responses (>6 months) were observed in 7 of 11 confirmed responses per RECIST v1.1. Median OS was 21.0 months. The combination regimen was generally well-tolerated among the 62 ILLUMINATE-204 patients receiving tilsotolimod at any dose in combination with ipilimumab.

​

Other Solid Tumors

​

Advancements in cancer immunotherapy have included the approval and late-stage development of multiple checkpoint inhibitors, as single agents or in combination, for other solid tumors including, among others, microsatellite instability high/deficient mismatch repair (“MSI-H/dMMR”) CRC and HNSCC.

​

In patients with CRC, nivolumab administered as monotherapy or in combination with ipilimumab has demonstrated benefit and is approved for the treatment of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. However, in a previously treated microsatellite stable (“MSS”) CRC patient population, nivolumab + ipilimumab combination therapy did not produce objective responses. MSS-CRC has been shown to be highly immunosuppressive. Moreover, the tumor microenvironment in MSS-CRC has been shown to keep dendritic cells in an immature state. Given tilsotolimod’s mechanism of action of activating dendritic cells, it may serve a complementary function to nivolumab and ipilimumab within the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (“TME”) of MSS-CRC patients.

​

In patients with relapsed or metastatic HNSCC (“RM-HNSCC”), results from prospectively conducted trials employing the immune-modulating antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab following chemotherapy heralded a new era of treatment for patients with RM-HNSCC. Patients responding to these agents have seen durable responses, and in controlled studies, an overall survival benefit has been demonstrated for the anti-PD-1 antibodies versus standard of care chemotherapy. The challenge remains to increase the percentage of patients responding to these treatments, which currently ranges from 13% to 23%, depending on the line of therapy.

​

Table of Contents

We believe, based on internally conducted commercial research and information published by the American Cancer Society and other references, that annually in the United States, approximately 149,500 people are diagnosed with CRC, of which 85% are MSS, and that approximately 53,000 deaths are attributed to CRC. Additionally, we believe that annually in the United States, approximately 66,000 people are diagnosed with HNSCC and there are approximately 14,500 deaths attributed to HNSCC. We also believe that, in 2018, approximately 212,000 patients in the United States with various tumor types have been treated with an anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 therapy. Approximately 87% of these patients may progress after treatment and therefore may benefit from alternative therapies.

​

​

ILLUMINATE-206 - Phase 2 Trial of Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125) in Combination with Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for the treatment of Solid Tumors

​

In September 2019, we initiated a Phase 2, open-label, global, multicohort study to evaluate tilsotolimod administered intratumorally in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of solid tumors. The basis for this study is supported by data generated from our ILLUMINATE-101 and ILLUMINATE-204 trials, which suggest the mechanism of action for tilsotolimod may be tumor-type agnostic and potentially beneficial in combination with checkpoint modulation in a variety of tumor types. We refer to this study as ILLUMINATE-206.

​

The objectives of ILLUMINATE-206 are to test the safety and effectiveness of intratumoral tilsotolimod in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of solid tumors.

​

Currently, we are evaluating relapsed/refractory MSS-CRC in immunotherapy-naïve patients treated with tilsotolimod in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab (the “MSS-CRC Study”). An initial group of ten patients was enrolled to evaluate the safety of administering the combination of tilsotolimod, nivolumab and ipilimumab. To investigate the safety profile of this triplet combination, ILLUMINATE-206 was designed with a stepwise approach to Yervoy® dosage. Patients in this initial safety cohort of the MSS-CRC Study, many of whom were heavily pre-treated and rapidly progressing, received 8 mg of intratumoral tilsotolimod and 3 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) Opdivo® every two weeks, along with 1 mg/kg of IV Yervoy® every eight weeks (the “Low-Dose, Low-Frequency Cohort”). This regimen was generally well tolerated; no patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events (AEs) and none experienced Grade 4 or 5 AEs. One patient experienced stable disease per RECIST v1.1 criteria and nine patients progressed as defined by RECIST v1.1. Investigators reported that six of the progressing patients had stability or reduction in size of injected lesions and six had stability or reduction in overall size of uninjected lesions.

​

Based on these results, we are actively enrolling patients in a second MSS-CRC Study cohort. Changes in the study design intended to improve potential outcomes in the targeted patient population included increasing the frequency of Yervoy® dosing to every three weeks and limiting the number of allowed prior lines of treatment to two. Accordingly, patients in the second group of 10 enrolled in the MSS-CRC Study will receive 8 mg of intratumoral tilsotolimod (total of 9 doses over approximately 28 weeks) and 3 mg/kg of intravenous (IV) Opdivo® every three weeks followed by 480 mg of IV Opdivo® every four weeks, along with 1 mg/kg of IV Yervoy® every three weeks for four doses (the “Low-Dose, High-Frequency Cohort”). Based on data from these patients, the MSS-CRC Study may be expanded further and/or provide rationale to explore additional tumor types.

​

As further discussed below under the heading “Collaborative Alliances,” in March 2019, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with BMS, under which BMS has agreed to manufacture and supply YERVOY® (ipilimumab) and OPDIVO® (nivolumab), at its cost and for no charge to us, for use in ILLUMINATE-206.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

ILLUMINATE-101 - Phase 1b Trial of Intratumoral Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125) Monotherapy in Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors

​

In March 2017, we initiated a Phase 1b dose escalation trial of intratumoral tilsotolimod as a single agent in multiple tumor types, which we refer to as ILLUMINATE-101.  We completed enrollment of a total of 38 patients in four dose-escalation cohorts at doses of 8mg (cohort 1, n=11), 16mg (cohort 2, n=8), 23mg (cohort 3, n=10) and 32mg (cohort 4, n=9).  There were no dose-limiting toxicities observed and tilsotolimod appeared to be generally well-tolerated at each of the dose levels tested. We also completed enrollment of 16 patients in a melanoma expansion cohort, which utilized a Simon’s optimal two-stage design, to assess whether tilsotolimod as a single agent (8mg dose) has any statistically relevant clinical activity, as demonstrated for objective response according to RECIST v1.1 criteria, in patients with metastatic melanoma who have progressed on or after treatment with a PD-(L)1 inhibitor. The study was completed in October 2019.

​

At the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting in April 2020, we provided final results of ILLUMINATE-101, noting that a total of 54 patients had been dosed, including 38 patients in the dose-evaluation portion of the trial and 16 patients in the melanoma dose-expansion cohort. Of the 51 evaluable patients, 29% (n=15) had a best response of stable disease. Duration of stable disease ranged from 1.5 to 12+ months from the start of treatment, with stable disease ongoing beyond 12 months for one patient as of the close of the study. There were no correlations between dose and efficacy observed.

​

An additional purpose of this study was to obtain tumor biopsies to assess the effect of tilsotolimod on the tumor microenvironment in multiple types of solid tumors and inform the expansion of the development program beyond melanoma. Translational research in ILLUMINATE-101 demonstrated that tilsotolimod increased dendritic cell activation and upregulated MHC class II and IFN-α signaling, which suggests improved antigen presentation, and is similar to that observed and previously reported in the tumor biopsies from the ILLUMINATE-204 melanoma subjects. This observation provided additional rationale to expand the tilsotolimod clinical development program to additional solid tumors.

​

Discontinued Programs

In July 2018, following an analysis of our gene-silencing technology platform and our research portfolio, we decided to suspend our rare disease and discovery programs as part of our overall strategy to more narrowly focus our capital resources on the development and commercialization of tilsotolimod. Please refer to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, which was filed with the SEC on March 11, 2020, for further details on our discontinued programs.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Collaborative Alliances

​

Our current alliances include collaborations with AbbVie and BMS. In addition to our current alliances, we may seek to enter into additional collaborative alliances to support development and commercialization of our TLR agonists and antagonists.

​

Collaboration with AbbVie

​

Effective August 27, 2019, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with AbbVie, a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company, to conduct a clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combinations of an OX40 agonist (ABBV-368), tilsotolimod, nab-paclitaxel and/or an anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antagonist (ABBV-181), which we refer to as the AbbVie Agreement. Under the AbbVie Agreement, we will provide a clinical trial supply of tilsotolimod to AbbVie and AbbVie will sponsor, fund and conduct the study entitled “A Phase 1b, Multicenter, Open-Label Study to Determine the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Preliminary Efficacy of ABBV-368 plus Tilsotolimod and Other Therapy Combinations in Subjects with Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma” (the, “AbbVie Study”). We have agreed to manufacture and supply tilsotolimod at its cost and for no charge to AbbVie, for use in the AbbVie Study.

​

Collaboration with Bristol-Meyers Squibb

​

Effective May 18, 2018, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with BMS (the “May 2018 BMS Agreement”) to clinically evaluate the combination of tilsotolimod with BMS’s therapy YERVOY® (ipilimumab). Under the May 2018 BMS Agreement, we will sponsor, fund and conduct our ongoing global, open-label, multicenter Phase 3 clinical trial of tilsotolimod in combination with YERVOY® entitled “A Randomized Phase 3 Comparison of IMO-2125 with Ipilimumab versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients with Anti-PD-1 Refractory Melanoma” in accordance with an agreed-upon protocol, which we refer to as ILLUMINATE-301.  Under the May 2018 BMS Agreement, BMS granted us a non-exclusive, non-transferrable, royalty-free license (with a right to sublicense) under its intellectual property to use YERVOY® in ILLUMINATE-301 and has agreed to manufacture and supply YERVOY®, at its cost and for no charge to us, for use in ILLUMINATE-301.

​

Effective March 11, 2019, we entered into a second clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with BMS (the “March 2019 BMS Agreement”) to clinically evaluate the combination of tilsotolimod with BMS’s therapy YERVOY® (ipilimumab) and OPDIVO® (nivolumab). Under the March 2019 BMS Agreement, we will sponsor, fund and conduct a Phase 2, open-label, global, multicenter, multicohort study of intratumoral tilsotolimod in combination with YERVOY® and OPDIVO® entitled “Study of Tilsotolimod in Combination with Nivolumab and Ipilimumab For the Treatment of Solid Tumors” in accordance with an agreed-upon protocol, which we refer to as ILLUMINATE-206.  Under the March 2019 BMS Agreement, BMS granted us a non-exclusive, non-transferrable, royalty-free license (with a right to sublicense) under its intellectual property to use YERVOY® and OPDIVO® in ILLUMINATE-206 and has agreed to manufacture and supply YERVOY® and OPDIVO®, at its cost and for no charge to us, for use in ILLUMINATE-206.

​

​

Table of Contents

Academic and Research Collaborations

​

We have entered into research collaborations with scientists at leading academic research institutions. These research collaborations allow us to augment our internal research capabilities and obtain access to specialized knowledge and expertise. In general, our research collaborations may require us to supply compounds and pay various amounts to support the research. Under these research agreements, if a collaborator, solely or jointly with us, creates any invention, we may own exclusively such invention, have an automatic paid-up, royalty-free non-exclusive license or have an option to negotiate an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license to such invention. Inventions developed solely by our scientists in connection with research collaborations are owned exclusively by us. These collaborative agreements are non-exclusive and may be terminated with limited notice.

​

Research and Development Expenses

​

We are committed to redefining the treatment of certain cancers and rare diseases and have historically dedicated a significant portion of our resources to our efforts on the discovery and development of our drug candidates. For the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, we spent approximately $24.8 million, $34.9 million, and $41.8 million, respectively, on research and development activities. We plan to continue to invest in research and development, primarily with respect to our clinical trials of tilsotolimod. Accordingly, we anticipate a significant portion of our operating expenses will continue to be related to clinical development in 2021 and beyond.

​

Table of Contents

Patents, Proprietary Rights and Trade Secrets

​

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our drug candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We use a variety of methods to seek to protect our proprietary position, including filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

​

We have devoted and continue to devote a substantial amount of our resources into establishing intellectual property protection for:

​

On November 5, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued to us U.S. Patent No. 10,463,686 entitled “Immune Modulation With TLR9 Agonists For Cancer Treatment,” which includes tilsotolimod. The patent includes 24 claims directed to methods of treating melanoma with intratumoral administration of tilsotolimod in combination with certain immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies, including inhibitors of the CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 pathways. The patent is expected to expire in September 2037.

​

On September 15, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 10,772,907 (the ‘907 Patent) to us, entitled “Immune Modulation with TLR9 Agonists for Cancer Treatment,” which includes our investigational therapy tilsotolimod. The ‘907 Patent includes 26 claims directed to methods of treating colorectal cancer (“CRC”) with intratumoral administration of tilsotolimod in combination with certain immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies, including CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1 proteins.

​

On November 17, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 10,835,550 (the ‘550 Patent) to us, entitled “immune Modulation with TLR9 Agonists for Cancer Treatment,” which includes our investigational therapy tilsotolimod. The ‘550 Patent includes 26 claims directed to methods of treating head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (“HNSCC”) with intratumoral administration of tilsotolimod in combination with certain immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies, including CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1 proteins.

​

These new patents (the ‘907 Patent and the ‘550 Patent) expand protection of the first tilsotolimod method-of-use patent, which was directed to methods of treating metastatic melanoma and was issued in November 2019. The ’907 Patent and the ‘550 Patent provide exclusivity for certain uses of tilsotolimod through September 2037.

​

As of February 15, 2021, we owned approximately 57 U.S. patents and patent applications and about 184 patents and patent applications throughout the rest of the world for our TLR-targeted immune modulation technologies. These patents and patent applications include claims covering the chemical compositions of matter and methods of use of our IMO compounds, such as IMO-8400, IMO-9200 and tilsotolimod (IMO-2125), as well as other compounds. These patents and patent applications (if granted) expire at various dates ranging from 2020 to 2041. With respect to IMO-8400, we have six issued U.S. patents that cover the chemical composition of matter of IMO-8400 and certain methods of its use, the latest of which expires in 2031. With respect to IMO-9200, we have nine issued U.S. patents that cover the chemical composition for IMO-9200 and methods of its use, the latest of which expires in 2034. With respect to tilsotolimod, we have an issued U.S. patent that covers the chemical composition of matter of tilsotolimod that will expire in 2024 and additional patents that cover methods of its use, the latest of which will expire in 2037. We have pending applications in the United States and outside of the United States that cover methods of treatment or use of tilsotolimod, which, if granted, will expire between 2035 and 2041.

​

Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in the scientific

Table of Contents

literature often lag behind actual discoveries, neither we nor our licensors can be certain that we or they were the first to make the inventions claimed in issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we or they were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in these patent applications.

​

Litigation may be necessary to defend against or assert claims of infringement, to enforce patents issued to us, to protect trade secrets or know-how owned by us, or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others or to determine the appropriate term for an issued patent. In addition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) may declare interference proceedings to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patent applications or reexamination or reissue proceedings to determine if the scope of a patent should be narrowed. Litigation or any of these other proceedings could result in substantial costs to and diversion of effort by us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. These efforts by us may not be successful.

​

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug, biological product or medical device approved pursuant to a pre-market approval may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date set for the patent. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be granted an extension and only those claims reading on the approved drug are extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

​

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our technology. Although trade secrets are difficult to protect, wherever possible, we use confidential disclosure agreements to protect the proprietary nature of our technology. We regularly implement confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and other contractors and collaborators. However, there can be no assurance that these agreements will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets and/or proprietary information will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may also arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

​

Manufacturing

​

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of clinical or commercial quantities of any of our drug candidates. We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on other companies for the manufacture of our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical development. We source our bulk drug manufacturing requirements from a limited number of contract manufacturers through the issuance of work orders on an as-needed basis. We currently do not have any long-term supply contracts. We depend and will continue to depend on our contract manufacturers to manufacture our drug candidates in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) regulations for use in clinical trials. We will ultimately depend on contract manufacturers for the manufacture of our products for commercial sale, if and when our drug candidates are approved. Contract manufacturers are subject to extensive governmental regulation.

​

​

Table of Contents

Competition

​

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We are currently developing tilsotolimod (IMO-2125), our TLR agonist drug candidate, for the treatment by intratumoral injection of multiple oncology indications in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. There are many other companies, both public and private, that are actively engaged in discovery, development, and commercializing products and technologies that may compete with our drug candidate, tilsotolimod, including TLR-targeted compounds as well as non-TLR-targeted therapeutics.

​

Immuno-oncology, which utilizes a patient’s own immune system to combat cancer, is currently an active area of research for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Interest in immuno-oncology is driven by efficacy data in cancers with historically bleak outcomes and the potential to achieve a cure or functional cure for some patients. As such, we expect that our efforts in this field will be competitive with a wide variety of different approaches. Any one of these competitive approaches may result in the development of novel technologies that are more effective, safer or less costly than any that we are developing.

​

We recognize that other companies, including large pharmaceutical companies, may be developing or have plans to develop products and technologies that may compete with ours. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, and human resources than we have. In addition, many of our competitors have significantly greater experience than we have in undertaking preclinical studies and human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical products, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products for use in health care and manufacturing, and marketing and selling approved products. Our competitors may discover, develop or commercialize products or other novel technologies that are more effective, safer or less costly than any that we are developing. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours.

​

We anticipate that the competition with our drug candidate, tilsotolimod, and technologies will be based on a number of factors including product efficacy, safety, availability, and price. The timing of market introduction of tilsotolimod and competitive products will also affect competition among products. We expect the relative speed with which we can develop tilsotolimod, complete the clinical trials and approval processes, and supply commercial quantities of the products to the market to be important competitive factors. Our competitive position will also depend upon our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, to obtain patent protection or otherwise develop proprietary products or processes, protect our intellectual property, and to secure sufficient capital resources for the period between technological conception and commercial sales.

​

Risks related to our competitors and our competitive position are discussed in further detail in the section entitled “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

Table of Contents

Government Regulation

​

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, pricing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

​

Review and Approval of Drugs in the United States

​

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and associated implementing regulations. The failure to comply with the FDCA and other applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice, or the DOJ, or other governmental entities, including state agencies.

​

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Preclinical Studies

​

Before an applicant begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated drug or drug product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Additional preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

​

Human Clinical Studies in Support of an NDA

​

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to a proposed clinical trial and places the trial on clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin.

​

Typically, the FDA will require one IND for early development studies where the sponsor is uncertain of the indication or dosage form of the proposed product, where the drug is being developed for closely related indications within a single review division at FDA, or where there are multiple closely-related routes of administration using the same dosage formulation. On the other hand, multiple INDs may be required where there are two or more unrelated conditions being developed or where multiple dosage forms are being extensively investigated or where multiple routes of administration are being evaluated.

​

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

​

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee (“DMC”). This group provides recommendations as to whether a trial should move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

​

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

​

Phase 1:    The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease (e.g. cancer) or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness and to determine optimal dosage.

​

Phase 2:    The drug is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

​

Table of Contents

Phase 3:    The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

​

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA, the sponsor or the data monitoring committee for a clinical trial may suspend or terminate the clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

​

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

​

NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical studies which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a similar product, or published literature. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the applicant for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”

​

Thus, Section 505(b)(2) authorizes the FDA to approve an NDA based on safety and effectiveness data that were not developed by the applicant. NDAs filed under Section 505(b)(2) may provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the Section 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, the applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

​

Submission of an NDA to the FDA

​

Assuming successful completion of required clinical testing and other requirements, the results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug product for one or more indications. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2021 is $2,875,842 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2021 is $336,432. Exceptions or waivers for these fees exist for a small company (fewer than 500 employees, including employees and affiliates) satisfying certain requirements and products with orphan drug designation for a particular indication are not subject to a fee provided there are no other intended uses in the NDA.

​

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of an NDA within 60 calendar days of its receipt and strives to inform the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review.

Table of Contents

​

The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Under the agreement, 90% of applications seeking approval of New Molecular Entities (“NMEs”), are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date on which the FDA accepts the NDA for filing, and 90% of applications for NMEs that have been designated for “priority review” are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing date. For applications seeking approval of drugs that are not NMEs, the ten-month and six-month review periods run from the date that the FDA receives the application. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

​

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including drug component manufacturing (such as active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements 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 GCP.

​

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the product is a new molecular entity. REMS can include medication guides, physician communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU may include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The FDA may require a REMS before approval or post-approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product.

​

The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, 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.

​

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review Designations

​

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation.

​

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

​

In 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”). This law established a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or

Table of Contents

more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

​

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

​

Accelerated Approval Pathway

​

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a drug for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the drug has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), and 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. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

​

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. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a drug.

​

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

​

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for drug candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

​

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

​

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific

Table of Contents

indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

​

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

​

Post-Approval Requirements

​

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with 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 user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

​

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

​

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the 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 trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In the United States, health care professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information.

​

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the DOJ, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

​

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), and its implementing regulations, as well as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (“DSCA”), which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drug samples at the federal level, and set minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states. The PDMA, its implementing regulations and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and the DSCA imposes requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate products from the market.

​

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

​

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (“RLD”).

​

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

​

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

​

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of this provision, a new chemical entity (“NCE”), is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the

Table of Contents

expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval. The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication.

​

The FDA must establish a priority review track for certain generic drugs, requiring the FDA to review a drug application within eight (8) months for a drug that has three (3) or fewer approved drugs listed in the Orange Book and is no longer protected by any patent or regulatory exclusivities, or is on the FDA’s drug shortage list. The new legislation also authorizes FDA to expedite review of ‘‘competitor generic therapies’’ or drugs with inadequate generic competition, including holding meetings with or providing advice to the drug sponsor prior to submission of the application.

​

Table of Contents

review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

​

For drugs intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of an applicant, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors and FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than ninety (90) days after FDA’s receipt of the study plan.

​

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

​

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

​

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

​

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). A company must request orphan product designation before submitting an NDA. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, although it does convey certain advantages such as tax benefits and exemption from PDUFA fees.

​

If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan product exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. Competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity and may obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication. If a drug or drug product designated as an orphan product ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

​

Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same drug for the same condition is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand. This is the case despite an earlier court opinion holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously required the FDA to recognize orphan exclusivity regardless of a showing of clinical superiority.

​

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

​

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time

Table of Contents

between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

​

The 21^st Century Cures Act

​

On December 13, 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”) into law. The Cures Act is designed to modernize and personalize healthcare, spur innovation and research, and streamline the discovery and development of new therapies through increased federal funding of particular programs. It authorizes increasing funding for FDA to spend on innovation projects. The new law also amends the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize and expand funding for the National Institutes of Health. The Act establishes the NIH Innovation Fund to pay for the cost of development and implementation of a strategic plan, early stage investigators and research. It also charges NIH with leading and coordinating expanded pediatric research. Further, the Cures Act directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand surveillance of neurological diseases.

​

With amendments to the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act, Title III of the Cures Act seeks to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of new medicines and medical technologies. To that end, and among other provisions, the Cures Act reauthorizes the priority review voucher program for certain drugs intended to treat rare pediatric diseases; creates a new priority review voucher program for drug applications determined to be material threat medical countermeasure applications; revises the FDCA to streamline review of combination product applications; requires FDA to evaluate the potential use of “real world evidence” to help support approval of new indications for approved drugs; provides a new “limited population” approval pathway for antibiotic and antifungal drugs intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections; and authorizes FDA to designate a drug as a “regenerative advanced therapy,” thereby making it eligible for certain expedited review and approval designations.

​

Review and Approval of Drug Products in the European Union

​

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, the company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

​

Clinical Trial Approval in the EU

​

Pursuant to the European Clinical Trials Directive, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, an applicant must obtain approval from the competent national authority of a European Union member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. Clinical trial application must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by the European Clinical Trials Directive and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation, which will be directly applicable to and binding without the need for any national implementing legislation. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial will be required to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial to a reporting EU Member State (RMS) through an EU Portal. The submission procedure will be the same irrespective of whether the clinical trial is to be conducted in a single EU Member State or in more than one EU Member State.

Table of Contents

The Clinical Trials Regulation also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting for clinical trials. The Regulation was published on June 16, 2014 but is not expected to apply until 2020.

​

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

​

Regulation 141/2000 provides that a drug shall be designated as an orphan drug if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the European Community when the application is made, or that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Community and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Community would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Community or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

​

Regulation 847/2000 sets out criteria and procedures governing designation of orphan drugs in the EU. Specifically, an application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. This period may, however, 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 orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity. Market exclusivity can be revoked only in very selected cases, such as consent from the marketing authorization holder, inability to supply sufficient quantities of the product, demonstration of “clinically relevant superiority” by a similar medicinal product, or, after a review by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, requested by a member state in the fifth year of the marketing exclusivity period (if the designation criteria are believed to no longer apply). Medicinal products designated as orphan drugs pursuant to Regulation 141/2000 shall be eligible for incentives made available by the European Community and by the member states to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan drugs.

​

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

​

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may also limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

​

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

​

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on 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 a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage

Table of Contents

policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular drug candidate to currently available therapies, or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become 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 competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

​

Healthcare Law and Regulation

​

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. Such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

​

Healthcare Reform in the United States

​

A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last several years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

​

By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “PPACA”) which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. Among the provisions of the PPACA of importance to potential drug candidates are:

Table of Contents

​

These healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices or the frequency with which products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Since enactment of the PPACA, there have been numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law.

​

Further, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing 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 addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

​

​

Table of Contents

Human Capital Resources

​

Our vision is to translate scientific breakthroughs into important new medicine. We have a culture where patients are at the center of all we do, with core values that connect us to each other and our stakeholders and define who we are, what we stand for, and how we work.

​

We are focused on effective attraction, development, and retention of, and compensation and benefits to, human resource talent, including workforce and management development, diversity and inclusion initiatives, succession planning, and corporate culture and leadership quality, which are vital to our success. At December 31, 2020, our total workforce consisted of 32 employees. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. 

​

During 2020, as we worked to manage through the effects of the human capital aspects of the pandemic, all employees were provided the option of working remotely or at our Exton office with appropriate safeguards.

​

Information About Our Executive Officers

​

See Part III, Item 10 “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance” for information relating to our executive officers.

​

Corporate Information

​

We were incorporated in Delaware in 1989 and our office headquarters is located at 505 Eagleview Boulevard, Suite 212, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341.

​

Information Available on the Internet

​

Our internet address is www.iderapharma.com. The contents of our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our internet address is included in this document as an inactive textual reference. We make available free of charge through our web site our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such materials to the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site at www.sec.gov containing reports, proxies and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Risks Relating to Our Business, Strategy, and Industry

We are depending heavily on the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our lead TLR-targeted drug candidate, tilsotolimod. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize tilsotolimod or any other drug candidate, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business may be materially harmed.

We have made and intend to continue to make a significant investment of our time and financial resources in the development and commercialization of tilsotolimod.  Our ability to generate product revenues will depend heavily on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize tilsotolimod. If we fail to obtain regulatory approval and successfully commercialize tilsotolimod, our business would be materially and adversely impacted.  Even if tilsotolimod receives regulatory approval, we will incur significant expenses to support its commercialization and launch, which investment may never be realized if sales are insufficient.

​

We are developing tilsotolimod in combination with other immuno-modulatory compounds and chemotherapeutic agents and our efforts may not be successful or result in any approved and marketable products.

Tilsotolimod is being developed for administration via intratumoral injection in combination with systemically administered checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of various solid tumors, including (i) anti-PD1 refractory metastatic melanoma in combination with ipilimumab, (ii) microsatellite stable colorectal cancer in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and (iii) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in combination with other oncology products. While we have evaluated the safety profile of tilsotolimod as a single agent via intratumoral injection in previous trials, and as marketed products the safety profiles of ipilimumab and nivolumab are each known, the safety profile of the combination of tilsotolimod with ipilimumab and/or nivolumab is still being evaluated. Further, under the AbbVie Agreement, AbbVie is conducting a clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tilsotolimod with other products. These factors may result in participating subjects experiencing serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or exposure to unacceptable health risks requiring us or AbbVie to suspend or terminate any clinical trials which are being conducted with tilsotolimod and other therapeutic agents.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our drug candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the U.S.

In addition, some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for drug candidates that treat the same indications as our drug candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors' drug candidates. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials could also require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays may result in increased development costs for our drug candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

If our clinical trials are unsuccessful, delayed or terminated, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our drug candidates.

Clinical trials are lengthy, complex, and expensive processes with uncertain results. We may not be able to complete any clinical trial of an investigational product within any specified time period. Moreover, clinical trials may not show our investigational products to have an acceptable safety and efficacy profile. The FDA or other equivalent foreign regulatory agencies may not allow us to complete these trials or commence and complete any other clinical trials.

Numerous unforeseen events may occur during, or as a result of, preclinical testing, nonclinical testing or the clinical trial process that could delay or inhibit the ability to receive regulatory approval or to commercialize drug products. For example, setbacks in clinical trials may result in enhanced scrutiny by regulators or institutional review boards (“IRBs”) of clinical trials of our drug candidates, including our TLR-targeted drug candidates, which could result in regulators or IRBs prohibiting the commencement of clinical trials, requiring additional nonclinical studies as a precondition to commencing clinical trials or imposing restrictions on the design or scope of clinical trials that could slow enrollment of trials, increase the costs of trials or limit the significance of the results of trials. Such setbacks could also adversely impact the desire of investigators to enroll patients in, and the desire of patients to enroll in, clinical trials of our drug candidates.

Table of Contents

Other events that could delay or inhibit conduct of our clinical trials include: (i) nonclinical or clinical data may not be readily interpreted, which may lead to delays and/or misinterpretation; (ii) our nonclinical tests, including toxicology studies, or clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results; (iii) we might have to suspend or terminate our clinical trials if the participating subjects experience serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or are exposed to unacceptable health risks; (iv) regulators or IRBs may hold, suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements, issues identified through inspections of manufacturing or clinical trial operations or clinical trial sites; (v) we, along with our collaborators and subcontractors, may not employ, in any capacity, persons who have been debarred under the FDA's Application Integrity Policy, or similar policy under foreign regulatory authorities; (vi) we or our contract manufacturers may be unable to manufacture sufficient quantities of our drug candidates for use in clinical trials; (vii) the cost of our clinical trials may be greater than we currently anticipate making continuation and/or completion improbable; and (viii) our drug candidates may not cause the desired effects or may cause undesirable side effects or our drug candidates may have other unexpected characteristics.

In conducting clinical trials, we cannot be certain that any planned clinical trial will begin on time, if at all. Delays in commencing clinical trials of potential products could increase our drug candidate development costs, delay any potential revenues, reduce the potential length of patent exclusivity and reduce the probability that a potential product will receive regulatory approval.  Significant clinical trial delays also could allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to commercialize our drug candidates.

Interim, “top-line,” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may materially differ, including as a result of audit and verification procedures, from final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or top-line data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, 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 or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line 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. 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. Differences between preliminary 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 price of our common stock. In addition, 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.

The technologies on which we rely are unproven and may not result in any approved and marketable products.

Our technologies or therapeutic approaches are relatively new and unproven. We have focused our efforts on the research and development of RNA- and DNA-based compounds, or oligonucleotides, targeted to TLRs. The results of preclinical studies with TLR-targeted compounds may not be indicative of results that may be obtained in clinical trials, and results we have obtained in the clinical trials we have conducted to date may not be predictive of results in subsequent clinical trials. Further, the chemical and pharmacological properties of TLR-targeted compounds may not be fully recognized in preclinical studies and small-scale clinical trials, and such compounds may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways that we have not yet identified. As a result of these factors, we may never succeed in obtaining regulatory approval to market any product.

​

Table of Contents

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing drugs before or more successfully than us.

There are many other companies, public and private, actively engaged in discovery, development, and commercializing products and technologies that may compete with our drug candidate and program, including TLR-targeted compounds as well as non-TLR-targeted therapeutics. Some potentially competitive products have been in development or commercialized for years. Many of the marketed products have been accepted by the medical community, patients, and third-party payors. Our ability to compete may be affected by the previous adoption of such products by the medical community, patients, and third-party payors.

We recognize that other companies, including large pharmaceutical companies, may be developing or have plans to develop products and technologies that may compete with ours. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, and human resources than we have and/or may have significantly greater experience than we have in undertaking preclinical studies and human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical products, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products for use in health care and manufacturing, and marketing and selling approved products. We anticipate that the competition with our drug candidates and technologies will be based on a number of factors including product efficacy, safety, availability, and price. The timing of market introduction of our drug candidates and competitive products will also affect competition among products. We expect the relative speed with which we can develop products, complete the clinical trials and approval processes, and supply commercial quantities of the products to the market to be important competitive factors.

Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of health epidemics, such as the recent COVID-19 global pandemic, including disruptions to our clinical trials or the delay of regulatory approvals.

Our business may be adversely affected by the effects of health epidemics, including the ongoing worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2019, COVID-19 emerged and in March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic. The spread of this pandemic has caused significant volatility and uncertainty globally. This has resulted in an economic downturn and may disrupt our business and delay our clinical trials and regulatory approvals. Quarantines and similar government orders have been enacted in each of the geographies in which we are conducting our clinical trials. The patient populations that are eligible for our clinical trials are immune-compromised and are at higher risk for becoming infected with COVID-19. As COVID-19 affects the parts of the world where we are conducting our clinical trials, and the patients involved with these clinical trials become infected with COVID-19, we may have more adverse events and deaths in our clinical trials as a result. Additionally, if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA from conducting its regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, 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. Such concerns could also affect the ability of our personnel to perform their normal responsibilities and could result in temporary closures of our facilities.

The global pandemic of COVID-19 continues to evolve. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, any one or a combination of these events could have an adverse effect on the operation of and results from our clinical trials, which could prevent or delay us from obtaining approval for tilsotolimod, or on our employee resources.

As a small biopharmaceutical-focused company with limited resources, we may be unable to attract and retain qualified personnel.

We are a small company with 32 full-time employees as of December 31, 2020. Any future growth will require hiring a number of qualified personnel. Also, because of the specialized scientific nature of our business, we face intense competition for qualified employees and consultants from biopharmaceutical companies, research organizations and academic institutions. Failure to attract and retain qualified personnel would materially harm our ability to compete effectively and grow our business.

If we lose any of our officers or key employees, our management and technical expertise could be weakened significantly.

Our success largely depends on the skills, experience, and efforts of our executive officers, especially our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Vincent Milano. We do not maintain key person life insurance policies covering any

Table of Contents

of our employees. The loss of any of our executive officers could weaken our management and technical expertise significantly and harm our business.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Marketing and Other Compliance Matters

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our drug candidates.

We are not permitted to market our drug candidates in the U.S. or in other countries until we, or any future collaborators, receive approval of an NDA from the FDA or marketing approval from applicable regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. The approval process is lengthy, often taking a number of years, is uncertain, and is expensive. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate's safety and efficacy. Information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities is also required. Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals could materially adversely affect our ability or that of any collaborators we may have to generate revenue from the particular drug candidate, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price.

Our failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent our drug candidates from being marketed abroad.

We, and any future collaborators, must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements in foreign jurisdictions. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional studies. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside of the U.S., it is required that the drug be approved for reimbursement before the drug can be approved for sale in that country. We, and any future collaborators, may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside of the U.S. does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions or by the FDA.

Additionally, on January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) withdrew from the E.U. (Brexit), thereby triggering a transition period that ended December 31, 2020. There is currently considerable uncertainty on regulatory processes in Europe and the European Economic Area. The lack of clarity about which E.U. rules and regulations the U.K. would replace or replicate, such as rules and regulations relating to trade (including the importation and exportation of pharmaceuticals), clinical research, and intellectual property, could negatively impact our business, including by restricting our ability to generate revenue in these jurisdictions.

Even if we, or any future collaborators, obtain marketing approvals for our drug candidates, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our drugs may limit how we, or they, manufacture and market our drugs, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

We, and any future collaborators, must comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any of our drug candidates for which we or they obtain marketing approval. Such promotional communications are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the drug’s approved labeling. Thus, we, and any future collaborators, may not be able to promote any drugs we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved.

In addition, manufacturers of approved drugs and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We, our contract manufacturers, our future collaborators and their contract manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, and other regulatory authorities to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMPs.

Accordingly, assuming we, or our future collaborators, receive marketing approval for one or more of our drug candidates, we, and our future collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control.

Table of Contents

If we, and our future collaborators, are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we, and our future collaborators, could have the marketing approvals for our drugs withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or our future collaborators’, ability to market any future drugs could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.

Moreover, legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict promotional activities relating to our drugs. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our drug candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA's approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us and any collaborators to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Any of our drug candidates for which we, or our future collaborators, obtain marketing approval in the future could be subject to post-approval restrictions or withdrawal from the market and we, and our future collaborators, may be subject to substantial penalties if we, or they, fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we, or they, experience unanticipated problems with our drugs following approval.

Any of our drug candidates for which we, or our future collaborators, obtain marketing approval in the future, as well as the manufacturing processes, post-approval studies and measures, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such drug, among other things, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a drug candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which could include requirements for a restricted distribution system.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of a drug. The FDA and other agencies, including the DOJ, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we, or our future collaborators, do not market any of our drug candidates for which we, or they, receive marketing approval for only their approved indications, we, or they, may be subject to warnings or enforcement action for off-label promotion.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our drugs or their manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including: (i) litigation involving patients taking our drug; (ii) restrictions on such drugs, manufacturers or manufacturing processes; (iii) restrictions on the labeling or marketing of a drug; (iv) restrictions on drug distribution or use; (v) requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials; (vi) warning letters or untitled letters; (vii) withdrawal of the drugs from the market; (viii) refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit; (ix) recall of drugs; (x) fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues; (xi) suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals; (xii) damage to relationships with any potential collaborators; (xiii) unfavorable press coverage and damage to our reputation; (xiv) refusal to permit the import or export of drugs; (xv) drug seizure; or (xvi) injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for applications of our TLR drug candidates.

The FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of seven years of marketing exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

In June 2017, the FDA granted us orphan drug designation for tilsotolimod for the treatment of melanoma Stages IIb to IV. However, there can be no assurance that we will obtain orphan drug designation or exclusivity for any other

Table of Contents

disease indications for which we develop tilsotolimod, or for our other drug candidates. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

A fast track designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and does not increase the likelihood that drug candidates will receive marketing approval.

In November 2017, the FDA granted us fast track designation for tilsotolimod for the treatment of anti-PD1 refractory metastatic melanoma in combination with ipilimumab therapy.  However, even with fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Additionally, we intend to seek fast track designation for other applications of our drug candidates. The FDA has broad discretion whether to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular drug candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it.

A breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for any application of our drug candidates may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that those drug candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for some applications of our drug candidates. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. The receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a drug candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our drug candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the products no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We have only limited experience in regulatory affairs and our drug candidates are based on new technologies; these factors may affect our ability or the time we require to obtain necessary regulatory approvals.

We have never obtained regulatory approval for, or commercialized, a drug. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept any or all of our planned NDAs for substantive review or may conclude, after review of our data, that our applications are insufficient to obtain regulatory approval of any of our drug candidates. The FDA may also require that we conduct additional clinical or manufacturing validation studies, which may be costly and time-consuming, 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 significantly delayed, possibly for years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available or can secure.

We are subject to extensive and costly governmental regulation, the violation of which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Our product candidates are subject and any future commercial products will be subject to costly, extensive and rigorous domestic and foreign government regulation, as discussed under the caption “Government Regulation” within Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In addition, our future arrangements with third party payors, healthcare providers and physicians 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 any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. These include, but are not limited to, the following: the Anti-Kickback Statute; the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; the False Claims Act; privacy laws such as HIPAA; transparency requirements; and analogous state and foreign laws. Additionally, some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business

Table of Contents

practices 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. 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.

We depend on information technology, infrastructure and data to conduct our business. Any significant disruption, or cyber-attacks, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are dependent upon information technology, infrastructure and data. Computer systems, including ours and those of our suppliers, partners and service providers, contain sensitive confidential information or intellectual property, and are vulnerable to service interruption or destruction, cyber-attacks (both malicious and random) and other natural or man-made incidents or disasters, which may be prolonged or go undetected. Such events are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. A significant interruption of our information technology could adversely affect our ability to manage and keep our operations running efficiently and effectively. An incident that results in a wider or sustained disruption to our business or products could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Likewise, data privacy or security breaches by employees or others may pose a risk that sensitive data, including our intellectual property, trade secrets or personal information of our employees, patients or other business partners may be exposed to unauthorized persons or to the public. There can be no assurance that our efforts, or the efforts of our partners and vendors, will prevent service interruptions, or identify breaches in our systems, that could adversely affect our business and operations and/or result in the loss of critical or sensitive information, which could result in financial, legal, business or reputational harm to us. In addition, our liability insurance may not be sufficient in type or amount to cover us against claims related to security breaches, cyberattacks and other related breaches.

Risks Relating to Collaborators

Our existing collaborations and any collaborations we enter into in the future may not be successful.

We rely in part on our collaborative alliances with AbbVie and BMS for the development of tilsotolimod. Our current collaboration agreements, as more fully described within Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or any collaborations we may enter into in the future, may not be successful. The success of our collaborative alliances, if any, will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Our existing collaborations and any potential future collaborations have risks, including the following: (i) our collaborators may control the development (and timing thereof) of the drug candidates being developed with our technologies and compounds and/or the companion diagnostic to be developed for use in conjunction with our drug candidates; (ii) our collaborators may control the public release of information regarding the developments; (iii) disputes may arise in the future with respect to the ownership of or right to use technology and intellectual property developed with our collaborators; (iv) disagreements with our collaborators could delay or terminate the development of our products, or result in litigation or arbitration; (v) we may have difficulty enforcing the contracts if any of our collaborators fail to perform; (vi) our collaborators may terminate their collaborations with us, which could make it difficult for us to attract new collaborators or adversely affect the perception of us in the business or financial communities; (vii) our collaboration agreements are likely to be for fixed terms and subject to termination by our collaborators in the event of a material breach or lack of scientific progress by us; (viii) our collaborators may challenge our intellectual property rights or utilize our intellectual property rights in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property rights or expose us to potential liability; (ix) our collaborators may not comply with all applicable regulatory requirements; (x) our collaborators may under fund or not commit sufficient resources to the testing or development of our drug candidates; and (xi) our collaborators may develop alternative products either on their own or in collaboration with others, or encounter conflicts of interest or changes in business strategy or other business issues. Given these risks, it is possible that any collaborative alliance into which we enter may not be successful.

​

Table of Contents

If we are unable to establish additional collaborative alliances, our business may be materially harmed.

Collaborators provide the necessary resources and drug development experience to advance our compounds in their programs. We have entered into and expect to continue to seek to enter into collaborative alliances with pharmaceutical companies to advance our TLR agonist and antagonist candidates and with respect to additional applications of our nucleic acid chemistry technology research program. Upfront payments and milestone payments received from collaborations help to provide us with the financial resources for our internal research and development programs. Our internal programs are focused on developing TLR-targeted drug candidates for the potential treatment of certain rare diseases and in our immuno-oncology program and on nucleic acid chemistry drug candidates. We believe that additional resources will be required to advance compounds in all of these areas. If we do not reach agreements with additional collaborators in the future or if the terms of such a collaborative alliance on are not favorable to us, we may not be able to obtain the expertise and resources necessary to achieve our business objectives, our ability to advance our compounds will be jeopardized and we may fail to meet our business objectives. Moreover, collaborations are complex and time consuming to negotiate, document, and implement. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations on a timely basis.

  Risks Relating to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our discoveries, the value of our technology and products will be adversely affected.

Our ability to develop and commercialize drugs depends in significant part on our ability to: (i) obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents; (ii) obtain licenses to the proprietary rights of others on commercially reasonably terms; (iii) operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others; (iv) prevent others from infringing on our proprietary rights; and (v) protect our trade secrets.

We do not know whether any of our currently pending patent applications or those patent applications that we license will result in the issuance of any patents. Our issued patents and those that may be issued in the future, or those licensed to us, may be challenged, invalidated, held unenforceable, narrowed in the course of a post-issuance proceeding or circumvented, and the rights granted thereunder may not provide us proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Moreover, intellectual property laws may change and negatively impact our ability to obtain issued patents covering our technologies or to enforce any patents that issue. Because of the extensive time required for development, testing, and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any of our products can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thus reducing any advantage provided by the patent.

Because patent applications in the U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, neither we nor our licensors can be certain that we or they were the first to make the inventions claimed in issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we or they were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in these patent applications.

Third parties may own or control patents or patent applications and require us to seek licenses, which could increase our development and commercialization costs, or prevent us from developing or marketing products.

Although we have many issued patents and pending patent applications in the U.S. and other countries, we may not have rights under certain third-party patents or patent applications related to our compounds under development. Third parties may own or control these patents and patent applications in the U.S. and abroad. In particular, we are aware of certain third-party U.S. patents that contain claims related to immunostimulatory polynucleotides and their use to stimulate an immune response, as well as to antisense technology. Although we do not believe any of our TLR or antisense compounds under development infringe any valid claim of these patents, we cannot be assured that the holder of such patents would not seek to assert such patents against us or, if the holder did, that the courts would not interpret the claims of such patents more broadly than we believe appropriate and determine that we are in infringement of such patents. In addition, there may be other patents and patent applications related to our current or future drug candidates of which we are not aware. Therefore, in some cases, in order to develop, manufacture, sell or import some of our drug candidates, we or our collaborators may choose to seek, or be required to seek, licenses under third-party patents issued in the U.S. and abroad or under third-party patents that might issue from U.S. and foreign patent applications. In such an event, we would be required to pay license fees or royalties or both

Table of Contents

to the licensor. If licenses are not available to us on acceptable terms, we or our collaborators may not be able to develop, manufacture, sell or import these products, or may be delayed in doing so. Either of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may become involved in expensive patent litigation or other proceedings, which could result in our incurring substantial costs and expenses or substantial liability for damages, require us to stop our development and commercialization efforts or result in our patents being invalidated, interpreted narrowly or limited.

There has been substantial litigation and other proceedings regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology industry. We may become a party to various types of patent litigation or other proceedings regarding intellectual property rights from time to time even under circumstances where we are not practicing and do not intend to practice any of the intellectual property involved in the proceedings. In addition to litigation, we may become involved in patent office proceedings, including oppositions, reexaminations, supplemental examinations and inter partes reviews involving our patents or the patents of third parties. We may initiate such proceedings or have such proceedings brought against us. An adverse determination in any such proceeding, or in litigation, could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future drug candidates. An adverse determination in a proceeding involving a patent in our portfolio could result in the loss of protection or a narrowing in the scope of protection provided by that patent.

The cost to us of any patent litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the cost of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. If any patent litigation or other proceeding is resolved against us, we or our collaborators may be enjoined from developing, manufacturing, selling or importing our drugs without a license from the other party and we may be held liable for significant damages. We may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially acceptable terms or at all. In a patent office proceeding, such as an opposition, reexamination or inter partes review, our patents may be narrowed or invalidated. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time.

Our intellectual property may be infringed by a third party.

Third parties may infringe one or more of our issued patents or trademarks. We cannot predict if, when or where a third party may infringe one or more of our issued patents or trademarks. To counter infringement, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, there is no assurance that we would be successful in proving that a third party is infringing one or more of our issued patents or trademarks. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us, alleging that we infringe their intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly and/or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question, any of which may adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in proving in a court of law that a third party is infringing one or more of our issued patents or trademarks there can be no assurance that we would be successful in halting their infringing activities.

Risks Relating to Product Manufacturing, Marketing and Sales, and Reliance on Third Parties

Even if tilsotolimod or other compounds we may develop are successful in clinical trials and receive regulatory approvals, we or our collaboration partners may not be able to successfully commercialize them.

Even if tilsotolimod were successful in clinical development and receive regulatory approvals, it may never reach or remain on the market, be successfully developed into commercial products or gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors or the medical community for a number of reasons including: (i) it may be found ineffective or cause harmful side effects; (ii) it may be difficult to manufacture on a scale necessary for commercialization; (iii) it may experience excessive product loss due to contamination, equipment failure, inadequate transportation or storage, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error,

Table of Contents

natural disasters or other catastrophic events, inconsistency in yields or variability in product characteristics; (iv) it may be uneconomical to produce; (v) the timing of market introduction of tilsotolimod and other compounds we may develop and competitive products may be inopportune; (vi) political and legislative changes may make the commercialization of tilsotolimod, or any other product candidates we may develop in the future, more difficult; (vii) we may fail to obtain reimbursement approvals or pricing that is cost effective for patients as compared to other available forms of treatment or that covers the cost of production and other expenses; (viii) they may not compete effectively with existing or future alternatives; (ix) we may be unable to develop commercial operations and to sell marketing rights; (x) it may fail to achieve market acceptance; or (xi) we may be precluded from commercialization of a product due to proprietary rights of third parties.

Because we have limited manufacturing experience, and no manufacturing facilities or infrastructure, we are dependent on third-party manufacturers to manufacture drug candidates for us.

We have limited manufacturing experience and no manufacturing facilities, infrastructure or clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. In order to continue to develop our drug candidates, apply for regulatory approvals, and ultimately commercialize products, we need to develop, contract for or otherwise arrange for the necessary manufacturing capabilities. We currently rely upon third parties to produce material for nonclinical and clinical testing purposes and expect to continue to do so in the future. We also expect to rely upon third parties to produce materials that may be required for the commercial production of our drug candidates, if approved. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our drug candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to develop drug candidates and commercialize any drug candidates on a timely and competitive basis. We currently do not have any long-term supply contracts.

There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under the FDA's cGMP regulations capable of manufacturing our drug candidates. As a result, we may have difficulty finding manufacturers for our drug candidates suitable for our needs. If we are unable to arrange for third-party manufacturing of our drug candidates on a timely basis, or on acceptable terms, we may not be able to complete development of our drug candidates or market them.  

Any contract manufacturers with which we enter into manufacturing arrangements will be subject to ongoing periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA, or foreign equivalent, and corresponding state and foreign agencies or their designees to ensure compliance with cGMP requirements and other governmental regulations and corresponding foreign standards. Any failure by our third-party manufacturers to comply with such requirements, regulations or standards could lead to a delay in the conduct of our clinical trials, or a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of any of our drug candidates. Such failure could also result in sanctions being imposed, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, product seizures or recalls, imposition of operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, or criminal prosecution.

Additionally, contract manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our drug candidates at a cost or in quantities necessary to make them commercially viable. Furthermore, changes in the manufacturing process or procedure, including a change in the location where the drug substance or drug product is manufactured or a change of a third-party manufacturer, may require prior FDA review and approval in accordance with the FDA's cGMP and NDA/BLA regulations. Contract manufacturers may also be subject to comparable foreign requirements. This review may be costly and time-consuming and could delay or prevent the launch of a drug candidate. The FDA or similar foreign regulatory agencies at any time may also implement new standards, or change their interpretation and enforcement of existing standards for manufacture, packaging or testing of products. If we or our contract manufacturers are unable to comply, we or they may be subject to regulatory action, civil actions or penalties.

We have no experience selling, marketing or distributing oncology products and no internal capability to do so.

We currently have no commercialization expertise in oncology, including sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. Advancing tilsotolimod through Phase 3 development and regulatory approval will require us to begin commercialization preparation activities and incur related expenses. These activities will include, among other things, the development of an in-house marketing organization and sales force, a market access and payor reimbursement strategy and a distribution function, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. If we are unable to adequately prepare the market for the potential future commercialization of tilsotolimod, we may not be able to generate product revenue once marketing authorization is obtained.

​

Table of Contents

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements on commercially reasonable terms, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.

If third parties on whom we rely for clinical trials do not perform as contractually required or as we expect, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our drug candidates and our business may suffer.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct the clinical trials required to obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates. We depend on independent clinical investigators, contract research organizations (CROs), and other third-party service providers in the conduct of the clinical trials of our drug candidates and expect to continue to do so. We expect to contract with CROs for future clinical trials. We rely heavily on these parties for successful execution of our clinical trials, but do not control many aspects of their activities. We are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable regulations and protocols for the trial. Third parties may not complete activities on schedule, or at all, or may not conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our protocols. If these third parties fail to carry out their obligations, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical or clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable drug candidate, or to commercialize such drug candidate being tested in such trials. If we seek to conduct any of these activities ourselves in the future, we will need to recruit appropriately trained personnel and add to our research, clinical, quality and corporate infrastructure.

The commercial success of any drug candidates that we may develop will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community.

Any products that we ultimately bring to the market, if they receive marketing approval, may not gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors or others in the medical community. For example, current cancer treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation therapy are well-established in the medical community, and doctors may continue to rely on these treatments. If our products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate product revenue and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our products, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: (i) the prevalence and severity of any side effects; (ii) the efficacy and potential advantages over alternative treatments; (iii) the ability to offer our drug candidates for sale at competitive prices; (iv) relative convenience and ease of administration; (v) the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies; (vi) the strength of marketing and distribution support and the timing of market introduction of competitive products; and (vii) publicity concerning our products or competing products and treatments.

Even if a potential product displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile, market acceptance of the product will not be known until after it is launched. Our efforts to educate patients, the medical community, and third-party payors about our drug candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources than are required by conventional methods used by our competitors.

If we are unable to obtain adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for any products that we may develop or acceptable prices for those products, our revenues and prospects for profitability will suffer.

Most patients rely on Medicare, Medicaid, private health insurers, and other third-party payors to pay for their medical needs, including any drugs we may market. If third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage or reimbursement for any products that we may develop, our revenues and prospects for profitability will suffer.

Third-party payors are challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit reimbursement for newly-approved products. These third-party payors may base their coverage and reimbursement on the coverage and reimbursement rate paid by carriers for Medicare beneficiaries. Furthermore, many such payors are investigating or implementing methods for reducing health care costs, such as the establishment of capitated or prospective payment systems. Cost containment pressures have led to an increased emphasis on the use of cost-effective products by health care providers, which could limit the price we might

Table of Contents

establish for products that we or our current or future collaborators may develop or sell, which would result in lower product revenues or royalties payable to us. In particular, third-party payors may limit the indications for which they will reimburse patients who use any products that we may develop.

We face a risk of product liability claims and may not be able to obtain insurance.  

Our business exposes us to the risk of product liability claims that is inherent in the manufacturing, testing, and marketing of prescription drugs. We face a risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our drug candidates in clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims and product recalls may result in: (i) decreased demand for our drug candidates and products; (ii) damage to our reputation; (iii) regulatory investigations that could require costly recalls or product modifications; (iv) withdrawal of clinical trial participants; (v) costs to defend related ligation; (vi) substantial monetary awards to clinical trial participants or patients; (vii) loss of revenue; (viii) the diversion of management's attention away from managing our business; and (ix) the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop.

Although we have product liability and clinical trial liability insurance that we believe is adequate, this insurance is subject to deductibles and coverage limitations. We may not be able to obtain or maintain adequate protection against potential liabilities. If we are unable to obtain insurance at acceptable cost or otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, we will be exposed to significant liabilities, which may materially and adversely affect our business and financial position. These liabilities could also prevent or interfere with our commercialization efforts.

Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and by-laws and Delaware law, may prevent a change in control that stockholders may consider desirable.

Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) and our certificate of incorporation and by-laws contain provisions that might enable our management to resist a takeover of our company or discourage a third party from attempting to take over our company. These provisions include: (i) a classified board of directors; (ii) limitations on the removal of directors; (iii) limitations on stockholder proposals at meetings of stockholders; (iv) the inability of stockholders to act by written consent or to call special meetings; and (v) the ability of our board of directors to designate the terms of and issue new series of preferred stock without stockholder approval. These provisions could: (i) have the effect of delay, defer or prevent a change in control of us or a change in our management that stockholders may consider favorable or beneficial or (ii) discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for stockholders to elect directors and take other corporate actions.

The Company’s amended and restated bylaws (“Bylaws”) provide, to the fullest extent permitted by law, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for certain legal actions between the Company and its stockholders, which could increase costs to bring a claim, discourage claims or limit the ability of the Company’s stockholders to bring a claim in a judicial forum viewed by the stockholders as more favorable for disputes with the Company or the Company’s directors, officers or other employees.

Our Bylaws provide to the fullest extent permitted by law that unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any (i) derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer, other employee or stockholder of the Company to the Company or its stockholders, (iii) any action arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation or the Bylaws, (iv) any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of the Certificate of Incorporation or the Bylaws, (v) or any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. The choice of forum provision may increase costs to bring a claim, discourage claims or limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with the Company or its directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against the Company or its directors, officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in the Company’s amended and restated bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, the Company may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions. The exclusive forum provision in our Bylaws would not apply to claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act or the Securities Act, or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Additionally, such provision will not relieve us of our duty to comply with the federal securities laws and

Table of Contents

the rules and regulations thereunder, and stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with these laws, rules and regulations.

​

Approximately 35% of our outstanding common stock is held (36% beneficially owned) by three stockholders. If these significant stockholders choose to act together, they could exert substantial influence over our business, and the interests of these stockholders may conflict with those of other stockholders.  

There is a concentration of ownership of our outstanding common stock because approximately 35% of our outstanding common stock is owned by three stockholders. As of February 15, 2021: (i) Baker Bros. Advisors LP, and certain of its affiliated funds (collectively, “Baker Brothers”) beneficially owned 11.1% of our outstanding common stock, which excludes all convertible securities as a result of certain beneficial ownership limitations as discussed on page F-36 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K; (ii) entities affiliated with Pillar Invest Corporation (the “Pillar Investment Entities”) beneficially owned 19.9% of our outstanding common stock; and (iii) Castellina Ventures Ltd. (“Castellina” and, together with Baker Brothers and Pillar Investment Entities, the “Significant Securityholders”) beneficially owned 5.3% of our outstanding common stock. If any of our Significant Securityholders acted together, they could be able to exert substantial influence over our business. Additionally, the interests of the Significant Securityholders may be different from or conflict with the interests of our other stockholders. This concentration of voting power with the Significant Securityholders could delay, defer or prevent a change of control, entrench our management and the board of directors or delay or prevent a merger, consolidation, takeover or other business combination involving us on terms that other stockholders may desire. In addition, conflicts of interest could arise in the future between us, on the one hand, and either of our Significant Securityholders on the other hand, concerning potential competitive business activities, business opportunities, the issuance of additional securities and other matters.

​

Our financial statements, including our balance sheets and statements of operations, are subject to quarterly changes related to the revaluation our warrant and future tranche right liabilities.

In accordance with ASC Topic 480, Liabilities-Distinguishing from Equity and/or ASC Topic 815, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, our outstanding Series B1 convertible preferred shares are accounted for as temporary equity and related warrants and future tranche rights issued in connection with our December 2019 Private Placement are accounted for as liabilities at fair value.  Accordingly, the associated warrant and future tranche right liabilities are re-measured at each reporting period with changes in fair value recorded in earnings. The process of determining the fair value of the warrants and future tranche rights requires complex models and the development of significant and subjective estimates that may, and are likely to, change over the duration of the instrument with related changes in internal and external market factors. As a result, our financial statements and results of operations may fluctuate quarterly, based on factors, such as the trading value of our common stock and certain assumptions, which are outside of our control. The liabilities and accounting line items associated with our warrant and future tranche right liabilities on our balance sheet and statement of operations are non-cash items, and the inclusion of such items in our financial statements may materially affect the outcome of our quarterly and annual results, even though such items are non-cash and do not affect the cash we have available for operations. Investors should take such accounting matters and other non-cash items into account when comparing our quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year operating results and financial statements.

If we are required to redeem shares of Series B1 preferred stock, or, if issued, Series B2, Series B3 or Series B4 preferred stock, our cash position will be negatively impacted.

Pursuant to the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, we issued 23,684 shares of Series B1 preferred stock and are contingently obligated to issue 98,685 shares of Series B2 preferred stock, 82,418 shares of Series B3 preferred stock and 82,418 shares of Series B4 preferred stock and accompanying warrants exercisable for either common stock or Series B1 preferred stock, to the extent Baker Brothers exercise its option to purchase these securities.  Subject to the terms of the Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series B1 Convertible Preferred Stock, Series B2 Convertible Preferred Stock, Series B3 Convertible Preferred Stock and Series B4 Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company, on or after the five-year anniversary of the applicable initial issuance date of each such series of preferred stock, and to the extent that the holder’s redemption rights with regard to such series of preferred stock are not lost upon our achievement of certain criteria regarding our stock price and ILLUMINATE-301 on or before the two-year anniversary date of the applicable initial issuance date, some or all of our outstanding shares of such series of preferred stock may be redeemable at the option of the holder at a redemption price of $152.00 per share of Series B1 and Series B2 preferred stock and $182.00 per share of Series B3 and Series B4 preferred stock. If a holder of preferred stock requests redemption, we will be required to redeem such

Table of Contents

shares of preferred stock, subject to certain provisions regarding insufficient funds. We may be unable to redeem such preferred stock if restrictions under applicable law or contractual obligations prohibit such redemption. Unless we operate profitably, our ability to redeem the preferred stock would require the availability of adequate “surplus,” which is defined as the excess, if any, of our net assets (total assets less total liabilities) over our capital. To date, we have operated at a loss. To the extent a Series B preferred stockholder exercises its redemption rights when it is eligible to do so, and if we do not have sufficient “surplus” under Delaware law at that time, we would be unable to effect such redemption. If we do have sufficient “surplus” to effect such redemption at that time, our available cash will be negatively impacted and our ability to use the net proceeds from this offering could be substantially limited. In addition, such reduction in our available cash could decrease the trading price of our common stock.

The issuance or sale of shares of our common stock, including the issuance of our securities pursuant to the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, could depress the trading price of our common stock.

The December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement transaction consists of four separate tranches. The terms of the tranches, including the number of shares issued or to be issued, the purchase prices, and the conversion prices and the number of warrants and exercise prices, are set forth beginning on page F-20 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If (i) we issue shares of common stock pursuant to the conversion or exercise of the securities issuable under the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, (ii) we issue additional shares of our common stock or rights to acquire shares of our common stock in other future transactions, (iii) any of our existing stockholders sells a substantial amount of our common stock, or (iv) the market perceives that such issuances or sales may occur, then the trading price of our common stock may significantly decrease. In addition, our issuance of additional shares of common stock will dilute the ownership interests of our existing common stockholders.

Certain investors in the December 2019 private placement will have the ability to control or significantly influence certain business decisions.

Pursuant to the terms of the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, subject to certain conditions, Baker Brothers have consent rights over certain significant matters of the Company’s business. These include decisions to (i) issue or authorize equity securities that rank equal or senior to the Series B1, Series B2, Series B3 and Series B4 preferred stock with respect to liquidation preference, (ii) incur any indebtedness in excess of $1,000,000, in the aggregate, outside the ordinary course of business (other than the refinancing of the Company’s term debt, if any), (iii) sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of tilsotolimod (such approval not to be reasonably withheld), (iv) license tilsotolimod in the U.S. or the E.U. (in each case such approval not to be unreasonably withheld), or (v) pay any dividends. As a result, Baker Brothers will have significant influence over certain matters affecting our business.

Because we do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock, investor returns will be limited to any increase in the value of our stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to support our operations and finance the growth and development of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, more fully described below, contains negative covenants which restricts our ability to pay dividends on our equity securities. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock, if any.

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

​

Table of Contents

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

​

The following is a summary of transactions by us involving sales of our securities that were not registered under the Securities Act during the year ended December 31, 2020.

​

April 2020 Private Placement

​

As reported in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 7, 2020, we sold shares of the Company’s common stock and warrants to purchase shares of common stock pursuant to the April 2020 Securities Purchase Agreement. These securities were issued in a private placement in reliance on Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Please refer to Note 8 of the Notes to Financial Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional details.

​

July 2020 Private Placement

​

As reported in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 15, 2020, we sold shares of the Company’s common stock, pre-funded warrants and warrants to purchase shares of common stock pursuant to the July 2020 Securities Purchase Agreement. These securities were issued in a private placement in reliance on Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Please refer to Note 8 of the Notes to Financial Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional details.

​

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

​

We did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the year ended December 31, 2020.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

​

Table of Contents

In the table below, research and development expenses are set forth in the following categories: Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125), IMO-8400 (rare diseases, which has been discontinued), and other drug development expenses.

​

Tilsotolimod (IMO-2125) External Development Expenses. 

​

These expenses include external expenses that we have incurred in connection with the development of tilsotolimod as part of our immuno-oncology program. These external expenses include payments to independent contractors and vendors for drug development activities conducted after the initiation of tilsotolimod clinical development in immuno-oncology, but exclude internal costs such as payroll and overhead expenses.

​

We commenced clinical development of tilsotolimod as part of our immuno-oncology program in July 2015, and from July 2015 through December 31, 2020, we incurred approximately $81.9 million in tilsotolimod external development expenses, including costs associated with the preparation for and conduct of ILLUMINATE-204, ILLUMINATE-101, ILLUMINATE-301, ILLUMINATE-206, and the manufacture of additional drug substance for use in our clinical trials and additional nonclinical studies.

​

IMO-8400 External Development Expenses.  

​

We discontinued development of IMO-8400 in July 2018, and incurred no such expenses during 2020. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, these expenses included payments to independent contractors and vendors for drug development activities conducted after the initiation of IMO-8400 clinical development. Such expenses excluded internal costs such as payroll and overhead expenses.

​

Other Drug Development Expenses.

​

These expenses include internal costs, such as payroll and overhead expenses, associated with all of our clinical development programs. In addition, these expenses include external expenses, such as payments to contract vendors, associated with compounds that were previously being developed but are not currently being developed.

​

General and Administrative Expenses

​

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of payroll, stock-based compensation expense, consulting fees and professional legal fees associated with our patent applications and maintenance, our corporate regulatory filing requirements, our corporate legal matters, and our business development initiatives. For the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, general and administrative expenses totaled $11.9 million and $12.5 million, respectively.

​

General and administrative expenses decreased by approximately $0.6 million, or 4.5%, in 2020 as compared to 2019, primarily due to lower employee related costs and legal fees, partially offset by increased commercial costs.

​

​

Table of Contents

Restructuring Costs

Restructuring costs consist primarily of severance and related benefit costs related to workforce reductions, contract termination and wind-down costs and asset impairments.

We did not incur any restructuring costs during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. Restructuring costs for the year ended December 31, 2019 totaled $0.2 million and resulted from our decision in July 2018 to wind-down our discovery operations, reduce the workforce in Cambridge, Massachusetts that supported such operations, and close our Cambridge facility.

​

Interest Income

​

Interest income for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 totaled $0.2 million and $1.2 million, respectively. The decrease in 2020, as compared to 2019, was primarily due to lower interest rates.

​

Amounts may fluctuate from period to period due to changes in average investment balances, including money market funds classified as cash equivalents, and composition of investments.

​

Warrant Revaluation Loss

​

During the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, we recorded a non-cash warrant revaluation loss of approximately $3.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively. The non-cash charges relate to the revaluation of our liability-classified warrants issued in connection with the December 2019 Private Placement, as more fully described in Note 7 of the Notes to Financial Statements appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K. Due to the nature of and inputs in the model used to assess the fair value of our outstanding warrants, it is not abnormal to experience significant fluctuations during each remeasurement period. These fluctuations may be due to a variety of factors, including changes in our stock price and changes in estimated stock price volatility over the remaining life of the warrants. Warrant revaluation loss for 2020 and 2019 was driven primarily by an increase in our stock price during each period. More specifically, the significant warrant revaluation loss for the 2020 period was primarily due to the approximate 102% increase in our stock price during the period January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Warrant revaluation loss was much more modest during the 2019 period as the change in our stock price from December 22, 2019 (issuance date of securities) to December 31, 2019 was only approximately 19%.

​

Future Tranche Right Revaluation Loss

​

During the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, we recorded a non-cash future tranche right revaluation loss of approximately $72.4 million and $11.0 million, respectively. The non-cash charges relate to the change in fair value during the respective period of the future tranche right liability (right to purchase preferred stock and warrants to an investor at future dates), associated with the Future Tranche Rights issued in connection with the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, as more fully described in Note 7 of the Notes to Financial Statements appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K. Due to the nature of and inputs in the model used to assess the fair value of the future tranche rights, it is not abnormal to experience significant fluctuations during each remeasurement period. These fluctuations may be due to a variety of factors, including changes in our stock price and changes in estimated stock price volatility over the remaining estimated lives of the future tranche rights. Changes in the fair value of the future tranche right liability and resulting future tranche right revaluation loss for 2020 and 2019 was driven primarily by an increase in our stock price during the periods. More specifically, the significant future tranche right revaluation loss for the 2020 period was primarily due to the approximate 102% increase in our stock price during the period January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Future tranche right revaluation loss was much more modest during the 2019 period as the change in our stock price from December 22, 2019 (issuance date of securities) to December 31, 2019 was only approximately 19%.

​

​

Table of Contents

Net Loss and Net Loss Attributable to Common Stockholders

​

As a result of the factors discussed above, our net loss was $112.7 million and $56.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2019, net loss attributable to common stockholders was $84.6 million, a difference of $28.0 million compared to net loss for the same period due to a deemed dividend related to the excess fair value provided to Baker Brothers in connection with the December 2019 Private Placement. See Note 7 of the Notes to Financial Statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional details.

​

Net Operating Loss Carryforwards

​

We have completed several financings since the effective date of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which as of December 31, 2020, have resulted in ownership changes that will significantly limit our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) and tax credit carryforwards. In December 2017, we completed a study which determined that ownership changes had occurred. The federal and state net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards and related deferred tax assets discussed below and included in Note 14 to the financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been adjusted to reflect the limitations that resulted from this study. The Company continues to monitor equity activity and potential ownership changes.

​

As of December 31, 2020, the Company had cumulative federal and state NOLs of approximately $328.7 million and $323.2 million available to reduce federal and state taxable income, respectively. As a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, federal net operating losses incurred for taxable years beginning after January 1, 2018 have an unlimited carryforward period, but can only be utilized to offset 80% of taxable income in future taxable periods. Of the $328.7 million of federal NOLs, $131.3 million have an unlimited carryforward and the remaining NOLs are still subject to expiration through 2037. State NOLs are still subject to expiration according to the laws of each respective jurisdiction. The Company files state tax returns in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania whereby both jurisdictions impose a 20-year carryforward period. All $323.2 million of state NOLs expire through 2040, with the first year of expiration being 2032 for $23.4 million of Massachusetts NOLs. In addition, at December 31, 2020, the Company had cumulative federal and state tax credit carryforwards of $25.0 million and $1.9 million, respectively, available to reduce federal and state income taxes, respectively, which expire through 2040 and 2033, respectively, for federal and state purposes, other than those that have an unlimited carryforward period.

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

respectively. Additionally, during the period January 1, 2021 through February 28, 2021, the Company sold 800,000 shares of its common stock pursuant to the LPC Purchase Agreement, resulting in net proceeds of $4.2 million. As of February 28, 2021, the Company may sell up to an additional $25.3 million of shares under the LPC Purchase Agreement, subject to certain limitations.

​

ATM Agreement

In November 2018, the Company entered into an Equity Distribution Agreement (the “ATM Agreement”) with JMP Securities LLC (“JMP”) pursuant to which the Company may issue and sell shares of its common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $50.0 million through JMP as its agent.

​

During the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, the Company sold 3,608,713 and 532,700 shares, respectively, pursuant to the ATM Agreement, resulting in net proceeds, after deduction of commissions and other offering expenses, of $12.3 million and $1.6 million, respectively. Additionally, during the period January 1, 2021 through February 28, 2021, the Company sold 2,394,956 shares of its common stock pursuant to the ATM Agreement resulting in net proceeds, after deduction of commissions, of $12.1 million. As of February 28, 2021, the Company may sell up to an additional $22.9 million of shares under the ATM Agreement.

​

The LPC Purchase Agreement and ATM Agreement are more fully described in Note 8 of the notes to our financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Private Placements

As more fully described in Notes 7 and 8 to the financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, between December 2019 and July 2020, the Company entered into three private placement financings with certain investors, which, collectively, may provide the Company with funding of up to $138.4 million, of which $25.2 million has been received through December 31, 2020. This funding is solely at the discretion of the investors and consists of:

​

Funding Requirements

​

We had cash, cash equivalents and investments of approximately $37.7 million at December 31, 2020. We believe based on our current operating plan, our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments on hand as of December 31, 2020, plus cash received through February 2021 from the ATM Agreement and LPC Purchase Agreement, will enable us to fund our operations into the second quarter of 2022. Specifically, we believe our available funds will be sufficient to enable us to perform the following:

Table of Contents

​

Assuming Baker Brothers and Pillar exercise their rights under their respective securities purchase agreement and no other forms of external funding, we expect the proceeds could fund operations beyond an NDA filing for tilsotolimod and into the second quarter of 2023. In addition, we are seeking and expect to continue to seek additional funding through collaborations, the sale or license of assets or financings of equity or debt securities. We believe that the key factors that will affect our ability to obtain funding are:

​

In addition, increases in expenses or delays in clinical development may adversely impact our cash position and require additional funds or cost reductions.

​

Financing may not be available to us when we need it or may not be available to us on favorable or acceptable terms or at all. Additionally, Baker Brothers may not exercise their right to purchase convertible preferred stock or exercise warrants in connection with the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement and the Pillar Investment Entities may not exercise their right to purchase shares of common stock (or pre-funded warrants) and common warrants, or exercise common warrants in connection with the April 2020 Securities Purchase Agreement or the July 2020 Securities Purchase Agreement. We could be required to seek funds through collaborative alliances or through other means that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies, drug candidates or drugs that we would otherwise pursue on our own. In addition, if we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our then existing stockholders may experience dilution. The terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of existing stockholders. An equity financing that involves existing stockholders may cause a concentration of ownership. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends, and are likely to include rights that are senior to the holders of our common stock. Any additional debt or equity financing may contain terms which are not favorable to us or to our stockholders, such as liquidation and other preferences, or liens or other restrictions on our assets. As discussed in Note 14 to the financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, additional equity financings may also result in cumulative changes in ownership over a three-year period in excess of 50% which would limit the amount of net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards that we may utilize in any one year.

​

If we are unable to obtain adequate funding on a timely basis or at all, we will be required to terminate, modify or delay our clinical trials of tilsotolimod, or relinquish rights to portions of our technology, drug candidates and/or products.

​

Table of Contents

Operating Activities. The net cash used in operating activities for all periods presented consists primarily of our net losses adjusted for non-cash charges and changes in components of working capital. The decrease in cash outflow for the year ended December 31, 2020, as compared to 2019, related to lower costs for our tilsotolimod development program.

​

Investing Activities. Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities primarily consisted of the following amounts relating to our investments in available-for-sale securities and purchases and disposals of property and equipment:

​

​

Financing Activities. Net cash provided by financing activities primarily consisted of the following amounts raised in connection with the following transactions:

​

​

Material Cash Requirements

​

As of December 31, 2020, we had a material lease commitment in an aggregate amount of $1.1 million relating to our facility in Exton, Pennsylvania. This lease expires on May 31, 2025. See Note 13 of the Notes to Financial Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.

​

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

​

This management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its estimates and judgments, including those related to warrant and future tranche right liabilities and related revaluation gains (losses), research and development prepayments, accruals and related expenses, stock-based compensation, and revenue recognition. Management bases its estimates and judgments on historical experience and on various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

​

We regard an accounting estimate or assumption underlying our financial statements as a “critical accounting estimate” where:

​

​

​

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2 to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we believe the following accounting policies to be most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our financial statements.

​

Warrant and Future Tranche Right Liabilities and Related Revaluation Gain (Loss)

​

We entered into the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, as more fully described in Note 7 of the Notes to Financial Statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, pursuant to which we issued shares of convertible preferred stock with detachable warrants. Additionally, the December 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement contains call options on redeemable preferred shares with warrants (conditionally exercisable for shares that are puttable), which we refer to as future tranche rights.

​

We determined that these warrants and future tranche rights represent freestanding financial instruments and account for both the warrants and future tranche rights as liabilities, which requires the measurement of the fair value of the liability at the time of issuance and recording changes as a charge to current earnings at each reporting period, which is included in Warrant Liability Revaluation Expense and/or Future Tranche Right Liability Revaluation Expense in the Company’s statements of operations.

​

Warrant Liability. We use an option pricing model to value our liability-classified warrants. Inherent in the valuation model are assumptions related to volatility, risk-free interest rate, expected term, dividend rate, and other scenarios (i.e. probability of complex features of the warrants being triggered). Due to the nature of and inputs in the model used to assess the fair value of the warrants, it is not abnormal to experience significant fluctuations during each remeasurement period.

​

Future Tranche Right Liability. We use both a lattice model and a Monte Carlo simulation to value the future tranche rights. We selected these models as we believe they are reflective of all significant assumptions that market participants would likely consider in negotiating the transfer of the future tranche rights. Such assumptions include, among other inputs, stock price volatility, risk-free rates, and expected terms inclusive of early exercise and cancellation assumptions. Due to the nature of and inputs in the model used to assess the fair value of the future tranche rights, it is not abnormal to experience significant fluctuations during each remeasurement period.

​

​

Table of Contents

Research and Development Prepayments, Accruals and Related Expenses

​

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued and prepaid expenses for research and development activities performed by third parties, including Clinical Research Organizations (“CROs”) and clinical investigators. These estimates are made as of the reporting date of the work completed over the life of the individual study in accordance with agreements established with CROs and clinical trial sites. Some CROs invoice us on a monthly basis, while others invoice upon achievement of milestones and the expense is recorded as services are rendered. We determine the estimates of research and development activities incurred at the end of each reporting period through discussion with internal personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or stage of completion of trials or services, as of the end of each reporting period, pursuant to contracts with clinical trial centers and CROs and the agreed upon fee to be paid for such services. We periodically confirm the accuracy of our estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary. Clinical trial site costs related to patient enrollments are recorded as patients are entered into the trial.

​

Stock-Based Compensation

​

We recognize all share-based payments to employees and directors as expense in our statements of operations based on their fair values. We record compensation expense over an award’s requisite service period, or vesting period, based on the award’s fair value at the date of grant. Our policy is to charge the fair value of stock options as an expense, adjusted for forfeitures, on a straight-line basis over the vesting period, which is generally four years for employees and one year for directors.

​

We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock option grants. The Black-Scholes option pricing model relies on a number of key assumptions to calculate estimated fair values, including assumptions as to average risk-free interest rate, expected dividend yield, expected life and expected volatility. For the assumed risk-free interest rate, we use the U.S. Treasury security rate with a term equal to the expected life of the option. Our assumed dividend yield of zero is based on the fact that we have never paid cash dividends to common stockholders and have no present intention to pay cash dividends. We use an expected option life based on actual experience. Our assumption for expected volatility is based on the actual stock-price volatility over a period equal to the expected life of the option.

​

If factors change and we employ different assumptions for estimating stock-based compensation expense in future periods, or if we decide to use a different valuation model, the stock-based compensation expense we recognize in future periods may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the current period and could materially affect our operating income (loss), net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share. It may also result in a lack of comparability with other companies that use different models, methods and assumptions. The Black-Scholes option pricing model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options that have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. These characteristics are not present in our option grants. Although the Black-Scholes option pricing model is widely used, existing valuation models, including the Black-Scholes option pricing model, may not provide reliable measures of the fair values of our stock-based compensation.

​

New Accounting Pronouncements

​

New accounting pronouncements are discussed in Note 2 of the Notes to Financial Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

and effected by the Company’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and includes those policies and procedures that:

​

​

​

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

​

Management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2020. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013).

​

Based on its assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2020, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective based on those criteria.

​

​

Not Applicable.

​

​

No change in our internal control over financial reporting occurred during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents