The following information
sets forth risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements
we have made in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and those we may make from time to time. You should carefully consider
the risks described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and our other
public filings. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be harmed by any of these risks. The risks and
uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks not presently known to us or other factors not perceived
by us to present significant risks to our business at this time also may impair our business operations.
Risks Related to our Business and Intellectual
Property
Our business and operations
are likely to be adversely affected by the evolving and ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic.
Our business and operations
are likely to be adversely affected by the effects of the recent and evolving COVID-19 virus, which was declared by the World Health
Organization as a global pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in travel and other restrictions in order to reduce the spread
of the disease, including state and local orders across the United States that, among other things, direct individuals to shelter
at their places of residence, direct businesses and governmental agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations,
prohibit certain non-essential gatherings and events and order cessation of non-essential travel. In response to public health
directives and orders, we have implemented work-from-home policies for all employees, including at our headquarters in Houston,
Texas, which is currently subject to an order that requires all non-essential businesses to cease in-person operations.
Remote work policies,
quarantines, shelter-in-place and similar government orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations
related to the COVID-19 pandemic may negatively impact productivity and, to date, have disrupted our ongoing research and development
activities and delayed certain of our clinical programs and timelines, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length
and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. In addition,
although our employees are accustomed to working remotely, changes in internal controls due to remote work arrangements may result
in control deficiencies in the preparation of our financial reports, which could be material.
Such orders may also
impact personnel at third-party manufacturing facilities in the United States and other countries, or the availability or cost
of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain and could affect our ability to conduct ongoing and planned clinical trials
and preparatory activities.
In
addition, we expect that we will be delayed in initiating our Phase 2 trial of MT-401 for post-transplant AML per previously communicated
timelines due to delays in our ability to enroll the first three patients in the safety lead-in portion of the trial because of
the COVID-19 pandemic and delays in receiving the new reagent for MT-401 and the final data and certificate of analysis required
by the FDA to satisfy the requirements for lifting the partial hold. Our ongoing clinical trials may be also affected by the COVID-19
pandemic. Patient enrollment and clinical site initiation may be delayed due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the
COVID-19 pandemic. Some patients may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement
or interrupt healthcare services. Similarly, we may be unable to recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site
staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, which would adversely impact clinical trial operations
The
spread of COVID-19, which has caused a broad impact globally, may materially affect us economically. While the potential economic
impact brought by, and the duration of, COVID-19 may be difficult to assess or predict, a widespread pandemic could result in significant
disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our
liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially affect our business
and the value of our common stock.
The
global pandemic of COVID-19 continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacts our business and operations,
including our clinical development and regulatory efforts, will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot
be predicted with confidence at the time of this Form 10-Q, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration
of the outbreak, the duration and effect of business disruptions and the short-term effects and ultimate effectiveness of the travel
restrictions, quarantines, social distancing requirements and business closures in the United States and other countries to contain
and treat the disease. Accordingly, we do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical
and regulatory activities, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these impacts could adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.
In
addition, to the extent the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and results of operations, it may also have
the effect of heightening many of the other risks and uncertainties described in this “Risk Factors” section.
We are a development stage
company with a history of operating losses.
We are a clinical-stage
immunotherapy company with a history of losses, and we may always operate at a loss. We expect that we will continue to operate
at a loss throughout our development stage, and as a result, we may exhaust our financial resources and be unable to complete the
development of our product candidates. We anticipate that our ongoing operational costs will increase significantly as we continue
conducting our clinical development program. Our deficit will continue to grow during our drug development period. We have no sources
of revenue to provide incoming cash flows to sustain our future operations. As outlined above, our ability to pursue our planned
business activities depends upon our successful efforts to raise additional financing. Our ability to raise additional capital
may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the recent disruptions to and volatility in the
credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
We have sustained losses
from operations in each fiscal year since our inception, and we expect losses to continue for the indefinite future due to the
substantial investment in research and development. As of March 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $334.0 million since
inception. We expect to spend substantial additional sums on the continued administration and research and development of licensed
and proprietary product candidates and technologies with no certainty that our approach and associated technologies will become
commercially viable or profitable as a result of these expenditures. If we fail to raise a significant amount of capital, we may
need to significantly curtail operations, allocate limited financial resources among our product candidates, or cease operations
in the near future. If any of our product candidates fail in clinical trials or do not gain regulatory approval, we may never generate
revenue. Even if we generate revenue in the future, we may not be able to become profitable or sustain profitability in subsequent
periods.
Our future success is highly
dependent upon our key personnel, and our ability to attract, retain, and motivate additional qualified personnel.
Our ability to compete
in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified
managerial, scientific, and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific, and medical personnel and
consultants, including Peter Hoang, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Juan Vera, M.D., our Chief Development and Scientific
Officer, and Mythili Koneru, M.D., Ph.D. our Chief Medical Officer as well as others. The loss of the services of any of our executive
officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements could
result in delays in product development and harm to our business. We have a priority to quickly train additional qualified scientific
and medical personnel to ensure the ability to maintain business continuity. Any delays in training such personnel could delay
the development, manufacture, and clinical trials of our product candidates.
Our ability to attract
and retain highly skilled personnel is critical to our operations and expansion. We face competition for these types of personnel
from other biotechnology companies and more established organizations, many of which have significantly larger operations and greater
financial, technical, human and other resources than us. We may not be successful in attracting and retaining qualified personnel
on a timely basis, on competitive terms, or at all. If we are not successful in attracting and retaining these personnel, or integrating
them into our operations, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.
In such circumstances, we may be unable to conduct certain research and development programs, unable to adequately manage our clinical
trials and development of our product candidates, and unable to adequately address our management needs.
Our strategic relationship
with Baylor College of Medicine, or BCM, is dependent, in part, upon our relationship with key medical and scientific personnel
and advisors.
Our MultiTAA-specific
T cell therapy has been developed through our collaboration with the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at BCM, founded by Malcolm
K. Brenner, M.D., Ph.D., a recognized pioneer in immuno-oncology. In addition to Dr. Brenner, our founders include Juan Vera, M.D.,
Ann Leen, Ph.D., Helen Heslop, M.D., DSc (Hon) and Cliona Rooney, Ph.D., who all have significant experience in this field and
are all affiliated with the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at BCM. Dr. Vera is our Chief Development Officer. In addition, Dr.
Brenner, Dr. Heslop and Dr. Rooney have joined our Scientific Advisory Board.
Our strategic relationship with BCM is dependent, in part, on
our relationship with these key employees and advisors, and in particular Dr. Vera. If Dr. Vera discontinues his employment with
us, our relationship with BCM may deteriorate, and our business could be harmed.
We, and certain of our key
medical and scientific personnel, will need additional agreements in place with BCM to expand our development, manufacture, and
clinical trial efforts.
Although we have an exclusive
license agreement with BCM under which we received a worldwide, exclusive license to BCM’s rights in and to three patent
families to develop and commercialize the MultiTAA-specific T cell product candidates, we will need to enter into additional agreements
with BCM with respect to (i) a strategic alliance to advance pre-clinical research, early stage clinical trials, and Phase 2 clinical
trials with respect to our product candidates, as well as continued access to our clinical data, and (ii) product manufacturing
and support, including personnel and space at the institution for the foreseeable future. Any delays in entering into new strategic
agreements with BCM related to our product candidates could delay the development, manufacture, and clinical trials of our product
candidates.
The multiple roles of certain
of Dr. Vera, our Chief Development and Scientific Officer, and John Wilson, our director, could limit their time and availability
to us, and create, or appear to create, conflicts of interest.
Dr. Vera is a co-founder
and member of Allovir Inc., or Allovir. Allovir is owned by the same principal stockholder group as us prior to our merger with
TapImmune, Inc. and has technology which is being developed under a license agreement with BCM by the same research group at BCM.
Allovir is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that is investigating and developing virus-specific T cell therapy technology
for the prevention and/or treatment of viral infections. Accordingly, Dr. Vera may have other commitments that would, at times,
limit his availability to us. Other research being conducted by Dr. Vera may, at times, receive higher priority than research on
our programs, which may, in turn, delay the development or commercialization of our product candidates.
In addition, John Wilson
is a co-founder, member and director of Allovir and is a director of our company. Both of these individuals have certain fiduciary
or other obligations to us and certain fiduciary or other obligations to Allovir and, in the case of Dr. Vera to BCM. Such multiple
obligations may in the future result in a conflict of interest with respect to presenting other potential business opportunities
to us or to Allovir. A conflict of interest also may arise concerning the timing and scope of the parties’ planned and ongoing
clinical trials, investigational new drug application filings and the parties’ opportunities for marketing their respective
product candidates, as well as our intellectual property rights with those of Allovir. In addition, they may be faced with decisions
that could have different implications for us than for Allovir. Consequently, there is no assurance that these members of our board
and management will always act in our best interests in all situations should a conflict arise.
We have not yet sold any products
or received regulatory approval to sell any product candidates.
We have no approved products
or product candidates pending approval. As a result, we have not derived any revenue from the sales of products and have not yet
demonstrated ability to obtain regulatory approval, formulate and manufacture commercial-scale products, or conduct sales and marketing
activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Without revenue, we can only finance our operations through debt
and equity financings.
Product development involves
a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier pre-clinical and clinical trials may not be predictive
of future clinical trial results.
Clinical testing is
expensive and generally takes many years to complete, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during
the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical testing and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be
predictive of the results of larger, later-stage controlled clinical trials. Product candidates that have shown promising results
in early-stage clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent clinical trials. Our clinical trials to date
have been conducted on a small number of patients in a single academic clinical site for a limited number of indications. We will
have to conduct larger, well-controlled trials in our proposed indications at multiple sites to verify the results obtained to
date and to support any regulatory submissions for further clinical development of our product candidates. Our assumptions related
to our product candidates, such as with respect to lack of toxicity and manufacturing cost estimates, are based on early limited
clinical trials and current manufacturing processes at BCM and may prove to be incorrect. In addition, the initial estimates of
the clinical cost of development may prove to be inadequate, particularly if clinical trial timing or outcome is different than
predicted or regulatory agencies require further testing before approval. For example, we anticipate that the COVID-19 pandemic
will delay our planned timelines for our Phase 2 trial of MT-401 for the treatment of post-transplant AML, which may impact our
estimates of costs for this trial. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks
in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles despite promising results in earlier, smaller clinical
trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. We do not know whether any Phase
2, Phase 3, or other clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety with respect to
the proposed indication for use sufficient to receive regulatory approval or market our product candidates.
The biotechnology and immunotherapy
industries are characterized by rapid technological developments and a high degree of competition. We may be unable to compete
with more substantial enterprises.
The biotechnology and
biopharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid technological developments and a high degree of competition. As a result,
our actual or proposed immunotherapies could become obsolete before we recoup any portion of our related research and development
and commercialization expenses. Competition in the biopharmaceutical industry is based significantly on scientific and technological
factors. These factors include the availability of patent and other protection for technology and products, the ability to commercialize
technological developments and the ability to obtain governmental approval for testing, manufacturing and marketing. We compete
with specialized biopharmaceutical firms in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, as well as a growing number of large pharmaceutical
companies that are applying biotechnology to their operations. Many biopharmaceutical companies have focused their development
efforts in the human therapeutics area, including cancer. Many major pharmaceutical companies have developed or acquired internal
biotechnology capabilities or made commercial arrangements with other biopharmaceutical companies. These companies, as well as
academic institutions, governmental agencies and private research organizations, also compete with us in recruiting and retaining
highly qualified scientific personnel and consultants. Our ability to compete successfully with other companies in the pharmaceutical
field will also depend to a considerable degree on the continuing availability of capital to us.
We are aware of certain
investigational new drugs under development or approved products by competitors that are used for the prevention, diagnosis, or
treatment of certain diseases we have targeted for drug development. Various companies are developing biopharmaceutical products
that have the potential to directly compete with our immunotherapies even though their approach may be different. The competition
comes from both biotechnology firms and from major pharmaceutical companies. Many of these companies have substantially greater
financial, marketing, and human resources than us. We also experience competition in the development of our immunotherapies from
universities, other research institutions and others in acquiring technology from such universities and institutions.
In addition, certain
of our immunotherapies may be subject to competition from investigational new drugs and/or products developed using other technologies,
some of which have completed numerous clinical trials.
We are subject to numerous
risks inherent in conducting clinical trials.
We outsource some of
the management of our clinical trials to third parties. Agreements with clinical investigators and medical institutions for clinical
testing and with other third parties for data management services, place substantial responsibilities on these parties that, if
unmet, could result in delays in, or termination of, our clinical trials. If any of our clinical trial sites fail to comply with
FDA-approved good clinical practices, we may be unable to use the data gathered at those sites. If these clinical investigators,
medical institutions or other third parties do not carry out their contractual duties or obligations or fail to meet expected deadlines,
or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical protocols
or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval
for, or successfully commercialize, agents. We cannot be certain that we will successfully recruit enough patients to complete
our clinical trials nor that we will reach our primary endpoints. Delays in recruitment, lack of clinical benefit or unacceptable
side effects would delay our clinical trials.
The COVID-19 pandemic
is also likely to cause disruptions to our clinical programs. For example, we expect that we will be delayed in initiating our
Phase 2 trial of MT-401 for post-transplant AML per previously communicated timelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may also result in
difficulties in initiating clinical sites and enrolling patients, the diversion of healthcare resources away from clinical trials
and other challenges related to travel or quarantine policies that may impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services.
We, or our regulators,
may suspend or terminate our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2019 the FDA placed
a clinical hold on our IND of MT-401 for the treatment of patients with post-transplant AML and requested certain information regarding
quality and technical specifications for two reagents supplied by third party vendors that are used in our manufacturing process
but not present in the final product infused to patients. In February 2020, the FDA lifted the clinical hold, permitting us to
initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial with a safety lead-in portion but placed a partial clinical hold on the trial for the use of
MT-401 manufactured using one of the reagents supplied by our alternative supplier. Our alternate supplier has notified us that
they will be delayed in providing the new reagent for MT-401, along with the final data and certificate of analysis required by
the FDA to satisfy the requirements for lifting the partial hold, which will delay our ability to initiate the trial per previously
communicated timelines. The FDA may not agree that our response addresses all of their concerns and the partial clinical hold may
remain in place and further delay the initiation of the trial. In addition, our ability to successfully work with our reagent supplier
may be limited or further delayed due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
We may voluntarily suspend
or terminate our clinical trials at any time if we believe they present an unacceptable risk to the patients enrolled in our clinical
trials or do not demonstrate clinical benefit. For example, in November 2019 we elected to suspend our Phase 2 clinical trial of
TPIV200 for the treatment of platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer based on an unblinded review of interim results conducted
by an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB. Although the DSMB did not express any safety concerns with respect
to TPIV200, we elected to suspend the trial because it did not meet the threshold for probability of clinical benefit based upon
our pre-specified criteria. In addition, regulatory agencies may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of our clinical
trials at any time if they believe that the clinical trials are not being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements
or that they present an unacceptable safety risk to the patients enrolled in our clinical trials.
Our clinical trial operations
are subject to regulatory inspections at any time. If regulatory inspectors conclude that we or our clinical trial sites are not
in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements for conducting clinical trials, we may receive reports of observations or
warning letters detailing deficiencies, and we will be required to implement corrective actions. If regulatory agencies deem our
responses to be inadequate, or are dissatisfied with the corrective actions we or our clinical trial sites have implemented, our
clinical trials may be temporarily or permanently discontinued, and we may be fined, we or our investigators may be precluded from
conducting any ongoing or any future clinical trials, the government may refuse to approve our marketing applications or allow
us to manufacture or market our products, and we may be criminally prosecuted. The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability
of future clinical trial results, may result in us failing to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, which would
materially harm our business, results of operations and prospects.
The successful development
of immunotherapies is highly uncertain.
Successful development
of biopharmaceuticals is highly uncertain and depends on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. Immunotherapies
that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons including:
|
·
|
clinical study results that may show the immunotherapy to be less effective than expected (e.g.,
the study failed to meet its primary endpoint) or to have unacceptable side effects;
|
|
·
|
failure to receive the necessary regulatory approvals or a delay in receiving such approvals. Among
other things, such delays may be caused by slow enrollment in clinical studies, length of time to achieve study endpoints, additional
time requirements for data analysis, or BLA preparation, discussions with the FDA, an FDA request for additional preclinical or
clinical data, or unexpected safety or manufacturing issues;
|
|
·
|
manufacturing costs, formulation issues, pricing or reimbursement issues, or other factors that
make the immunotherapy uneconomical; and
|
|
·
|
the proprietary rights of others and their competing products and technologies that may prevent
the immunotherapy from being commercialized.
|
Success in preclinical
and early clinical studies does not ensure that large-scale clinical trials will be successful. Clinical results are frequently
susceptible to varying interpretations that may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approvals. The length of time necessary to complete
clinical studies and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly
from one immunotherapy to the next and may be difficult to predict.
Even if we are successful
in getting market approval, commercial success of any of our product candidates will also depend in large part on the availability
of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs
and managed care organizations, which may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures designed to reduce the
cost of health care. Third-party payors could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related
to the cost effectiveness of a product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert our resources. If government
and other health care payors were not to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement levels for any of our products if approved,
market acceptance and commercial success would be reduced.
In addition, if one of
our products is approved for marketing, we will be subject to significant regulatory obligations regarding the submission of safety
and other post-marketing information and reports and registration, and will need to continue to comply (or ensure that our third-party
providers comply) with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, and current Good Clinical Practices or cGCPs for any clinical
trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, there is always the risk that we or a regulatory authority might identify previously
unknown problems with a product post-approval, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency. Compliance with these
requirements is costly, and any failure to comply or other issues with our product candidates’ post-market approval could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
It may take longer and cost
more to complete our clinical trials than we project, or we may not be able to complete them at all.
For budgeting and planning
purposes, we have projected the dates for the commencement, continuation, and completion of our various clinical trials. However,
a number of factors, including scheduling conflicts with participating clinicians and clinical institutions, difficulties in identifying
and enrolling patients who meet trial eligibility criteria, and competition for such eligible patents from other clinical trials,
may cause significant delays. We may not commence or complete clinical trials involving any of our product candidates as projected
or may not conduct them successfully.
We expect that we will
be delayed in initiating our planned Phase 2 trial of MT-401 for post-transplant AML due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As previously
announced, the FDA placed a partial clinical hold for the use of MT-401 manufactured using one of the reagents supplied by our
alternative supplier. Our alternate supplier has notified us that they will be delayed in providing the new reagent for MT-401,
along with the final data and certificate of analysis required by the FDA to satisfy the requirements for lifting the partial hold.
We cannot guarantee when, or if, we will be successful in these efforts. Further, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will
be delayed in our ability to enroll the first three patients in the safety lead-in portion of the trial required by the FDA. The
pandemic may also impact our other clinical programs.
We may experience difficulties
in patient enrollment in our future clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance
with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study
until its conclusion. In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are
in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available
to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted
by one of our competitors. Accordingly, we cannot guarantee that our clinical trials will progress as planned or as scheduled.
Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our ongoing clinical trial and
planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development
of our product candidates.
We rely on medical institutions,
academic institutions, and clinical research organizations to conduct, supervise, or monitor some or all aspects of clinical trials
involving our product candidates. We may have less control over the timing and other aspects of these clinical trials than if we
conducted them entirely on our own. If we fail to commence or complete, or experiences delays in, any of our planned clinical trials,
we may experience delays in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans.
In particular, while
BCM will continue to support our trials with production of MultiTAA-specific T cells under contract, we anticipate that we will
have to rely on contract manufacturing organizations or CMOs or internal facilities yet to be developed for the commercial manufacture
of our multi-antigen specific T cell therapy product candidates for clinical trials and eventual licensure. If they fail to commence
or complete, or experience delays in, manufacturing our multi-antigen specific T cell therapy product candidates, our planned clinical
trials with respect to such product candidates will be delayed, and we may experience delays in our clinical development and/or
commercialization plans
Clinical trials are expensive,
time-consuming, and difficult to design and implement, and our clinical trial costs may be higher than for more conventional therapeutic
technologies or drug products.
Clinical trials are expensive
and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Because our product
candidates are based on new technologies and manufactured on a patient-by-patient basis for our MultiTAA-specific T cell product
candidates we expect that they will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing costs. In addition,
costs to treat patients with relapsed/refractory cancer and to treat potential side effects that may result from our product candidates
can be significant. Some clinical trial sites may not bill, or obtain coverage from, Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors
for some or all of these costs for patients enrolled in our clinical trials, and we may be required by those trial sites to pay
such costs. Accordingly, our clinical trial costs may be significantly higher per patient than those of more conventional therapeutic
technologies or drug products. In addition, our proposed personalized product candidates involve several complex manufacturing
and processing steps, the costs of which will be borne by us. Depending on the number of patients we ultimately enroll in our trials,
and the number of trials we may need to conduct, our overall clinical trial costs may be higher than for more conventional treatments.
Further, delays and interruptions to ongoing trials related to the COVID-19 pandemic may also increase the duration and costs of
such trials.
Our clinical trials may fail
to demonstrate adequately the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and
commercialization.
The clinical trials of
our product candidates are, and the manufacturing and marketing of any approved products will be, subject to extensive and rigorous
review and regulation by numerous government authorities in the United States and in other countries where we intend to test and
market our product candidates. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates,
we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex, and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates
are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. In particular, because our product candidates are subject to regulation
as biological drug products, we will need to demonstrate that they are safe, pure and potent for use in their target indications.
Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its
intended use. The risk/benefit profile required for product licensure will vary depending on these factors and may include not
only the ability to show tumor shrinkage, but also adequate duration of response, a delay in the progression of the disease, and/or
an improvement in survival. For example, response rates from the use of our product candidates may not be sufficient to obtain
regulatory approval unless we can also show an adequate duration of response. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years
to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results
of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage
clinical trials. The results of studies in one set of patients or line of treatment may not be predictive of those obtained in
another. In addition, we expect that there may be greater variability in results for products processed and administered on a patient-by-patient
basis, as anticipated for our MultiTAA-specific T cell product candidates, than for “off-the-shelf” products, like
many other drugs. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through
clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile
despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical
industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues,
notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory
authorities for commercialization.
In addition, even if
such trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results
as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results
of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may
be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential
approval of our product candidates.
Our product candidates may
cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval,
limit their commercial potential, or result in significant negative consequences.
Undesirable side effects
caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay, or halt clinical trials and could
result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory
authorities. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics.
If unacceptable toxicities
arise in the development of our product candidates, we or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to
cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects
could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product
liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff,
as toxicities resulting from personalized cell therapy, as with our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy products, are not normally
encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial
condition and prospects significantly.
Our MultiTAA-specific T cell
therapy research and development efforts are to a large extent dependent upon BCM’s investigators and laboratories.
It will take time to
fully develop our research and development infrastructure. While we are conducting some research and development activities internally,
we currently depend upon and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as BCM, and which in
the future may include other universities, medical institutions, and strategic partners, to conduct our preclinical studies and
clinical trials. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities would be delayed. Agreements
with such third parties might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties.
We expect to use the
results of BCM’s research to support the filing with the FDA of IND applications to conduct more advanced clinical trials
of our product candidates. However, we have limited control over the nature or timing of BCM’s clinical trials and limited
visibility into their day-to-day activities. The research we are funding constitutes only a small portion of BCM’s overall
research. Other research being conducted by Dr. Ann Leen and Dr. Juan Vera may at times receive higher priority than research on
our programs. These factors could adversely affect the timing of our IND filings and our ability to conduct future planned clinical
trials.
We currently conduct
all research and development activities at BCM laboratories. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, BCM has restricted access to its facilities,
and we are unable to conduct laboratory work, including activities required to initiate the safety lead-in portion of our Phase
2 trial of MT-401. We are in the process of establishing in-house laboratories.
We will be unable to seek regulatory
approval of or commercialize our products if our trials are not successful.
Our research and development
programs are at an early stage. We must demonstrate our products’ safety and efficacy in humans through extensive clinical
testing. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the testing process that could delay or prevent
commercialization of our products, including but not limited to the following:
|
·
|
safety and efficacy results in various human clinical trials reported in scientific and medical
literature may not be indicative of results we obtain in our clinical trials;
|
|
·
|
after reviewing trial results, we or our collaborators may abandon product candidates that we might
previously have believed to be promising;
|
|
·
|
we, our collaborators or regulators, may suspend or terminate clinical trials if the participating
subjects or patients are being exposed to unacceptable health risks; and
|
|
·
|
the effects our potential product candidates have may not be the desired effects or may include
undesirable side effects or other characteristics that preclude regulatory approval or limit their commercial use if approved.
|
Further, we expect that
the COVID-19 pandemic will delay our ability to initiate our planned Phase 2 trial of MT-401 for post-transplant AML and may impact
our other clinical programs due to delays and difficulties in clinical site initiation and patient enrollment and potential diversion
of healthcare resources and other interruptions in clinical trial activities.
Clinical testing is very
expensive, can take many years, and the outcome is uncertain. For example, it can take as much as 12 months or more before we learn
the results from any clinical trial using our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy. The data collected from our clinical trials may
not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA of our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy-based product candidates for the treatment
of hematological malignancies. The clinical trials for our product candidates under development may not be completed on schedule
and the FDA may not ultimately approve any of our product candidates for commercial sale. If we fail to adequately demonstrate
the safety and efficacy of any product candidate under development, we may not receive regulatory approval for those product candidates,
which would prevent us from generating revenues or achieving profitability.
We may not be able to expand
our manufacturing processes to other third-party manufacturing facilities or successfully create our own manufacturing infrastructure
for supply of our requirements of product candidates for use in clinical trials and for commercial sale.
We do not own any facility
that may be used as our clinical-scale manufacturing and processing facility. We currently rely on third-party Contract Manufacturing
Organizations, or CMOs, for manufacture of our vaccine product candidates. For 2020, we anticipate that we will initially rely
solely on the cGMP manufacturing facility within BCM for the manufacturing of our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy-based product
candidates. BCM has currently restricted access to its facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and we are currently unable to
conduct any manufacturing activities for MT-401. If the cGMP manufacturing facility of BCM, which does manufacture for itself and
other parties, experiences capacity constraints, other disruptions, or delays in manufacturing our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy-based
product candidates, our planned clinical trials and necessary manufacturing capabilities will be disrupted or delayed, which will
adversely affect our ability to conduct and further develop our business as currently planned. Further, the cGMP manufacturing
facility is most likely too small to conduct the pivotal clinical studies being planned by us, so we will need to develop our own
cGMP manufacturing capacity that will be adequate for such clinical trials with respect to our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy-based
product candidates.
In 2020, we intend to
begin developing additional cGMP manufacturing capacity of our own that would be capable of supporting our manufacturing needs
with respect to our clinical trials, particularly with respect to pivotal studies. We intend to begin a process technology transfer
to develop in-house manufacturing capabilities in 2021. Establishment of our own manufacturing facility is subject to many risks.
For example, the establishment of a cell-therapy manufacturing facility is a complex endeavor requiring knowledgeable individuals.
Creating an internal manufacturing infrastructure will rely upon building out a complex facility and finding personnel with an
appropriate background and training to staff and operate the facility. Should we be unable to find these individuals, we may need
to rely on external contractors or train additional personnel to fill needed roles. There are a small number of individuals with
experience in cell therapy, and the competition for these individuals is high.
We expect that the development
of our own manufacturing facility will provide us with enhanced control of material supply for both clinical trials and the commercial
market, enable the more rapid implementation of process changes, and allow for better long-term margins. However, we do not have
extensive experience in developing a manufacturing facility and may never be successful in developing our own manufacturing facility
or capability. We may establish multiple manufacturing facilities as we expand our commercial footprint to multiple geographies,
which may lead to regulatory delays or prove costly. Even if we are successful, our manufacturing capabilities could be affected
by cost-overruns, unexpected delays, equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, power failures, transportation difficulties
and numerous other factors that could prevent us from realizing the intended benefits of our manufacturing strategy and have a
material adverse effect on our clinical development and/or commercialization plans.
In addition, the manufacturing
process for any product candidates that we may develop is subject to the FDA and foreign regulatory authority approval process,
and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA and foreign regulatory authority requirements on
an ongoing basis. If we or our CMOs are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the FDA, or other regulatory
authorities, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to commercialize any approved products. Even if we obtain regulatory
approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our CMOs will be able to manufacture the approved
product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet
the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand. Any of these challenges could delay
completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical
trial costs, delay approval of our product candidate, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an
adverse effect on our clinical development and/or commercialization plans.
Whether we engage additional
CMOs to manufacture our product candidates or establish our own manufacturing facility, in order to transfer our MultiTAA-specific
T cell manufacturing from or expand our manufacturing capabilities beyond BCM pursuant to our development plans, we will need access
to the standard operating procedures and the specific batch production records that are used to manufacture the product candidates.
If BCM does not support the transfer of our manufacturing processes or impedes our ability to transfer the manufacturing processes
of its product candidates to us, our planned clinical trials and additional necessary manufacturing capabilities will be delayed,
which will adversely affect our ability to conduct and further develop our business as currently planned.
We will be dependent on third-party
vendors to design, build, maintain and support our manufacturing and cell processing facilities.
As a result of our strategy
to outsource our manufacturing, we will rely very heavily on BCM and other third-party manufacturers to perform the manufacturing
of our product candidates for our clinical trials. We license our technology from others. We intend to rely on our contract manufacturers
to produce large quantities of materials needed for clinical trials and potential product commercialization. Third-party manufacturers
may not be able to meet our needs concerning timing, quantity, or quality. If we are unable to contract for a sufficient supply
of needed materials on acceptable terms, or if we should encounter delays or difficulties in our relationships with manufacturers,
our clinical trials may be delayed, thereby delaying the submission of product candidates for regulatory approval or the market
introduction and subsequent sales of any approved products. Any such delay may lower our revenues and potential profitability.
If any third party breaches or terminates its agreement with us or fails to conduct its activities in a timely manner, the commercialization
of our product candidates could be slowed down or blocked completely. It is possible that third parties relied upon by us will
change their strategic focus, pursue alternative technologies, or develop alternative product candidates, either on their own or
in collaboration with others, as a means for developing treatments for the diseases targeted by our collaborative programs, or
for other reasons. The effectiveness of these third parties in marketing their own products may also affect our revenues and earnings.
We intend to continue
to enter into additional third-party agreements in the future. However, we may not be able to negotiate any additional agreements
successfully. Even if established, these relationships may not be scientifically or commercially successful.
Our manufacturing process is
reliant upon the specialized equipment, and other specialty materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or
at all. For some of this equipment and materials, we rely or may rely on sole-source vendors or a limited number of vendors, which
could impair our ability to manufacture and supply our product candidates.
We will depend on a limited
number of vendors for supply of certain materials and equipment used in the manufacture of our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy-based
product candidates. For example, we will purchase equipment and reagents critical for the manufacture of our product candidates
from Wilson Wolf (a company controlled by our director John Wilson), JPT Peptide Technologies and other suppliers. Some of our
suppliers may not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms or may otherwise
be ill-equipped to support our needs. We also may not have supply contracts with many of these suppliers and may not be able to
obtain supply contracts with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may not be able to obtain key materials and equipment
to support clinical or commercial manufacturing. Further, the FDA may determine that our manufacturing process, or the materials
required for the manufacture of our product candidates, are not acceptable, which would require us to find alternative suppliers
or processes, which may not be available on favorable terms, if at all. For example, the FDA has requested additional data from
us regarding the new reagent we intend to use to manufacture MT-401 before we can proceed with the remainder of our planned Phase
2 trial of MT-401 for the treatment of post-transplant AML.
For some of this equipment
and materials, we may rely, and may now and/or in the future rely, on sole-source vendors or a limited number of vendors. An inability
to continue to source product from any of these suppliers, which could be due to regulatory actions or requirements affecting the
supplier, adverse financial, or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected
demands, or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for our product candidates, which could adversely
and materially affect our operating results or our ability to conduct clinical trials, either of which could significantly harm
our business.
As we continue to develop
and scale our manufacturing process, we may need to obtain rights to and supplies of specific materials and equipment to be used
as part of that process. For example, our MultiTAA-specific T cell manufacturing process is based, in part, upon the G-Rex®
cell culture device manufactured by Wilson Wolf, which is used by many cell therapy developers, both in commercial and academic
settings. Although we do hold the license to patents from BCM that could be used to prevent third parties from developing similar
and competing processes, we do not own any exclusive rights to the G-Rex®. We may not be able to obtain rights to such materials
and equipment on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and if we are unable to alter our process in a commercially viable manner
to avoid the use of such materials or find a suitable substitute, it would have a material adverse effect on our business.
The manufacture of our product
candidates is complex, and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling
up of our manufacturing capabilities. If we, or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to
supply our product candidates for clinical trials, or our product candidates for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped,
or we may be unable to maintain a commercially viable cost structure.
Our product candidates
are biologics, and the process of manufacturing our product candidates is complex, highly regulated and subject to multiple risks.
For example, the manufacture of our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy-based product candidates involves complex processes, including
drawing blood from patients/donors, manufacturing the clinical product, and ultimately infusing the product into a patient. As
a result of the complexities, the cost to manufacture biologics is generally higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds,
and the manufacturing process is less reliable and is more difficult to reproduce. Our manufacturing processes will be susceptible
to product loss or failure due to any of the following: logistical issues associated with the collection of blood cells, or starting
material, from the patient or a donor, shipping such material to the manufacturing site, shipping the final product back to the
patient, and infusing the patient with the product; manufacturing issues associated with the variability in patients’ or
donor’s starting cells; interruptions in the manufacturing process; contamination; equipment failure; improper installation
or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error; inconsistency in cell growth; and variability in product characteristics.
Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other
supply disruptions. If for any reason we lose a patient’s or a donor’s cells, or later-developed product at any point
in the process, the manufacturing process for that patient will need to be restarted and the resulting delay may adversely affect
that patient’s outcome and/or the results of clinical trials. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered
in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities
may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination.
Because our MultiTAA-specific
T cell therapy-based product candidates are manufactured for each particular patient, we will be required to maintain a chain of
identity with respect to the patient’s/donor’s blood cells as it moves from the patient to the manufacturing facility,
through the manufacturing process, and back to the patient. Maintaining such a chain of identity is difficult and complex, and
failure to do so could result in adverse patient outcomes, loss of product, or regulatory action including withdrawal of our product
candidates from the market. Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical to late stage clinical trials towards
approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are
altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these
intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results
of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.
Currently, our product
candidates are manufactured using processes developed by BCM, our third-party research institution collaborator. Although we are
working to develop our own commercially viable processes, doing so is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated
with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential
problems with process scale up, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of raw materials.
As a result of these challenges, we may experience delays in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans. We may ultimately
be unable to reduce the cost of goods for our product candidates to levels that will allow for an attractive return on investment
if and when those product candidates are commercialized.
No assurance can be given that
we will be able to develop a new, FDA-compliant, more efficient, lower cost manufacturing process upon which our business plan
to commercialize MultiTAA-based product candidates is dependent.
In cooperation with our
current contract manufacturers, we intend to develop improved methods for generating and selecting T cells, and to develop methods
for large-scale production of our current product candidates that are in accordance with current cGMP procedures. Developing a
new, scaled-up, pharmaceutical manufacturing process that can more efficiently and cost effectively, and in a more automated manner
produce, measure and control the physical and/or chemical attributes of our product candidates in a cGMP facility is subject to
many uncertainties and difficulties. We have never manufactured our adoptive T cell therapy product candidate on a commercial scale.
As a result, we cannot give any assurance that we will be able to establish a manufacturing process that can produce our product
candidates at a cost or in quantities necessary to make them commercially viable. Moreover, we and our third-party manufacturers
will have to continually adhere to current cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. If these
facilities cannot pass a pre-approval plant inspection, the FDA premarket approval of our product candidates will not be granted.
In complying with cGMP and foreign regulatory requirements, we and any of our third-party manufacturers will be obligated to expend
time, money and effort in production, record-keeping and quality control to assure that our product candidates meet applicable
specifications and other requirements. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to comply with these requirements, we
may be subject to regulatory action. No assurance can be given that we will be able to develop such manufacturing process, or that
our partners will thereafter be able to establish and operate such a production facility.
The deviations in our proposed
new MultiTAA-based product candidates from existing products may require us to perform additional testing, which will increase
the cost, and extend the time for obtaining approval.
Our MultiTAA-specific
T cell therapy platform is based on the adoptive T cell therapy technology that we licensed from BCM and that is presently available
as a physician-sponsored investigational therapy at BCM for the treatment of lymphoma, AML/MDS, multiple myeloma and select solid
tumors in the United States. The current method of treatment is labor intensive and expensive. We are performing process optimization
that we anticipate will enable more efficient manufacturing of our product candidates. We may have difficulty demonstrating that
the product candidates produced from our new processes are identical to the existing products. The FDA may require additional clinical
testing before permitting a larger clinical trial with the new processes, and such drug substance may not be as efficacious in
the new clinical trials. Cellular products are not considered to be well characterized products because there are hundreds of markers
present on T cells, and even small changes in manufacturing processes could alter the cell subtypes. It is unclear at this time
which of those markers are critical for success of T cells to combat cancer, so our ability to predict the outcomes with newer
manufacturing processes is limited. The changes that we may make to the existing manufacturing process may require additional testing,
which may increase costs and timelines associated with these developments. In addition to developing a multi-antigen T cell-based
therapy on existing adoptive T cell therapy technology, we are currently evaluating the desirability of conducting clinical trials
of our product candidates in combination with other existing drugs. These combination therapies will require additional testing,
and clinical trials will require additional FDA regulatory approval and will increase our future cost of development.
We may not be able to develop
product candidates successfully or on a timely basis.
Our immunotherapy product
candidates are at various stages of research and development. Further development and extensive testing will be required to determine
their technical feasibility and commercial viability. We will need to complete significant additional clinical trials demonstrating
that our product candidates are safe and effective to the satisfaction of the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities. The
drug approval process is time-consuming, which involves substantial expenditures of resources, and depends upon a number of factors,
including the severity of the disease indication in question, the availability of alternative treatments, and the risks and benefits
demonstrated in the clinical trials. Our success depends on our ability to achieve scientific and technological advances and to
translate such advances into licensable, FDA-approvable, commercially competitive products on a timely basis. Failure can occur
at any stage of the process. If such programs are not successful, we may be unable to develop revenue-producing products. As we
enter a more extensive clinical program for our product candidates, the data generated in these studies may not be as compelling
as the earlier results.
Immunotherapies that
we may develop are not likely to be commercially available for at least five years. Any delay in obtaining FDA and/or other necessary
regulatory approvals in the United States and in countries outside the United States for any investigational new drug and
failure to receive such approvals would have an adverse effect on the investigational new drug’s potential commercial success
and on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA
and non-U.S. regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials
and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. For example, the FDA or
non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials or study endpoints; or we
may be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks. In addition,
the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials
or the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of a BLA or
other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere. The FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities
may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical
and commercial supplies; and the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may significantly
change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type
and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development
and may vary among jurisdictions. The proposed development schedules for our immunotherapy product candidates may be affected by
a variety of other factors, including technological difficulties, clinical trial failures, regulatory hurdles, competitive products,
intellectual property challenges and/or changes in governmental regulation, many of which will not be within our control.
Any delay in the development,
approval, introduction or marketing of our product candidates could result either in such product candidates being marketed at
a time when their cost and performance characteristics would not be competitive in the marketplace or in the shortening of their
commercial lives. In light of the long-term nature of our projects, the unproven technology involved and the other factors described
elsewhere in this section, we might not be able to successfully complete the development or marketing of any new product candidates,
and as a result, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
We may be required to reduce our staff, discontinue certain research or development programs of our future products and cease to
operate.
Our commercial success depends
upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, healthcare payors
and the medical community.
Even if we obtain regulatory
approval for our product candidates, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical
community. Market acceptance of our product candidates, if we receive approval, depends on a number of factors, including the:
|
·
|
efficacy and safety of our product candidates as demonstrated
in clinical trials and post-marketing experience;
|
|
·
|
clinical indications for which our product candidates
may be approved;
|
|
·
|
acceptance by physicians and patients of our product
candidates as safe and effective;
|
|
·
|
potential and perceived advantages of our product candidates
over alternative treatments;
|
|
·
|
safety of our product candidates seen in a broader
patient group, including our use outside the approved indications should physicians choose to prescribe for such uses;
|
|
·
|
prevalence and severity of any side effects;
|
|
·
|
product labeling, or product insert requirements of
the FDA or other regulatory authorities;
|
|
·
|
timing of market introduction of our product candidates
as well as competitive products;
|
|
·
|
cost in relation to alternative treatments;
|
|
·
|
pricing and the availability of coverage and adequate
reimbursement by third-party payors and government authorities;
|
|
·
|
relative convenience and ease of administration; and
|
|
·
|
effectiveness of any sales and marketing efforts.
|
Moreover, if our product
candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community,
we may not be able to generate significant revenues, which would compromise our ability to become profitable.
We may not be able to establish
or maintain the third-party relationships that are necessary to develop or potentially commercialize some or all of our product
candidates.
We expect to depend on
collaborators, partners, licensees, clinical research organizations and other third parties to support our discovery efforts, to
formulate product candidates, to manufacture our product candidates, and to conduct clinical trials for some or all of our product
candidates. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully negotiate agreements for or maintain relationships with collaborators,
partners, licensees, clinical investigators, vendors and other third parties on favorable terms, if at all. Our ability to successfully
negotiate such agreements will depend on, among other things, potential partners’ evaluation of the superiority of our technology
over competing technologies and the quality of the preclinical and clinical data that it has generated, and the perceived risks
specific to developing our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain or maintain these agreements, we may not be able to clinically
develop, formulate, manufacture, obtain regulatory approvals for or commercialize our product candidates.
Issued patents covering our
product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or with the USPTO.
If we, our licensing
partners, or any potential future collaborator initiates legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed to
one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in
part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace.
Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty,
non-obviousness or enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with
prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third
parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of
litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g.,
opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they are no
longer directed to our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable,
and prior art could render our patents or those of our licensors invalid or could prevent a patent from issuing from one or more
of our pending patent applications. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent
applications has been found. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not
believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications, which may, nonetheless, ultimately
be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. Furthermore, even if our patents are unchallenged, they may not adequately
protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, prevent others from designing around our claims
or provide us with a competitive advantage. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability,
we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. 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 product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have
a material adverse impact on our business development.
If we are unable to protect
our proprietary rights, we may not be able to compete effectively or operate profitably.
Our commercial success
is dependent in part on our ability to obtain, maintain, and enforce the patents and other proprietary rights that we have licensed
and may develop, and on our ability to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of others. We generally seek to protect our proprietary
position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies
and their uses that are important to our business. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing
the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent
the issued claims are directed to the technology. There can be no assurance that our patent applications or those of our licensor
will result in additional patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with
similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around or invalidated
by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings
instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights
is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any
competitive advantage. This failure to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to our product candidates could
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
We seek to protect our
proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with relevant employees, consultants,
scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets
by maintaining physical security of the premises and physical and electronic security of the information technology systems. While
we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may
not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered
by competitors. To the extent that the consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their
work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
Although we have patents
and patent applications in other countries, we cannot be certain that the claims in other pending U.S. or European patent applications,
international patent applications, and patent applications in certain other foreign territories directed to methods of generating
multi-antigen specific T cell product candidates, or our other product candidates, will be considered patentable by the USPTO,
courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in foreign countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in
our issued European patent will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.
Most of our intellectual
property rights are currently licensed from BCM and the Mayo Foundation, so that the preparation and prosecution of these patents
and patent applications was not performed by us or under our control. Furthermore, patent law relating to the scope of claims in
the biotechnology field in which we operate is still evolving and, consequently, patent positions in our industry may not be as
strong as in other more well-established fields. The patent positions of biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve
complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the
breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology patents has emerged to date. The patent application process is subject to numerous risks
and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting
our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:
|
·
|
the USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of
procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process, the noncompliance with which can result in
abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, and partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction;
|
|
·
|
patent applications may not result in any patents being issued;
|
|
·
|
patents that may be issued or in-licensed may be challenged, invalidated, modified, revoked, circumvented,
found to be unenforceable or otherwise may not provide any competitive advantage;
|
|
·
|
our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources than us, and many of whom have
made significant investments in competing technologies, may seek or may have already obtained patents that will limit, interfere
with or eliminate our ability to make, use and sell our potential product candidates;
|
|
·
|
there may be significant pressure on the U.S. government and international governmental bodies
to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for disease treatments that prove successful,
as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; and
|
|
·
|
countries other than the United States may have patent laws less favorable to patentees than those
upheld by U.S. courts, allowing foreign competitors a better opportunity to create, develop and market competing product candidates.
|
The patent prosecution
process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications
at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also
possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain
patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution
of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, directed to technology that we license from third parties. We may also require
the cooperation of one of our licensors in order to enforce the licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided.
Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of
our business. We cannot be certain that patent prosecution and maintenance activities by our licensor have been or will be conducted
in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents
that may issue from such applications. If they fail to do so, this could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual
property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize products or product candidates may be adversely
affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.
In addition, identification
of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences
in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. The issuance of
a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and it is uncertain how much protection, if
any, will be given to the patents we have licensed from a licensor if either the licensor or we attempt to enforce the patents
and/or if they are challenged in court or in other proceedings, such as oppositions, which may be brought in foreign jurisdictions
to challenge the validity of a patent. A third party may challenge our patents, if issued, or the patent rights that we license
from others in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. It is possible that a competitor may successfully
challenge our patents or that a challenge will result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or
held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical products, or
limit the duration of the patent protection of our products and product candidates. Moreover, the cost of litigation to uphold
the validity of patents and to prevent infringement can be substantial. If the outcome of litigation is adverse to us, third parties
may be able to use our patented invention without payment to us. Moreover, it is possible that competitors may infringe our patents
or successfully avoid them through design innovation. To stop these activities, we may need to file a lawsuit. These lawsuits are
expensive and would consume time and other resources, even if we were successful in stopping the violation of our patent rights.
In addition, there is a risk that a court would decide that our patents are not valid and that we do not have the right to stop
the other party from using the inventions. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of our patents were upheld, a court
would refuse to stop the other party on the ground that its activities are not covered by, that is, do not infringe, our patents.
Should third parties
file patent applications, or be issued patents claiming technology also used or claimed by our licensor(s) or by us in any future
patent application, we may be required to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention
for those patents or patent applications that are subject to the first-to-invent law in the United States, or may be required to
participate in derivation proceedings in the USPTO for those patents or patent applications that are subject to the “first-inventor-to-file”
law in the United States. We may be required to participate in such interference or derivation proceedings involving our issued
patents and pending applications. We may be required to cease using the technology or to license rights from prevailing third parties
as a result of an unfavorable outcome in an interference proceeding or derivation proceeding. A prevailing party in that case may
not offer us a license on commercially acceptable terms or on any terms.
The use of our technologies
could potentially conflict with the rights of others.
Our potential competitors
or other entities may have or acquire patent or proprietary rights that they could enforce against our licensors. There is a substantial
amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the
biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, reexaminations, inter
partes review proceedings and post-grant review, or PGR, proceedings before the USPTO and/or corresponding foreign patent
offices. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are
developing product candidates. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations,
methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. If they do so, then
they could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidates and products that may be approved
in the future, or impair our competitive position by requiring us to alter our product candidates, pay licensing fees or cease
activities.
As the biotechnology
industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement
of the patent rights of third parties. Because patent applications are maintained as confidential for a certain period of time,
until the relevant application is published we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization
of any of our product candidates, and we cannot be certain that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product
candidate or technology. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently-pending patent
applications that later issue as patents that our product candidates may infringe. If our product candidates conflict with patent
rights of others, third parties could bring legal actions against us or our collaborators, licensees, suppliers or customers, claiming
damages and seeking to enjoin manufacturing and marketing of the affected product candidates. If these legal actions are successful,
in addition to any potential liability for damages, we could be required to obtain a license in order to continue to manufacture
or market the affected product candidates. We may not prevail in any legal action and a required license under the patent may not
be available on acceptable terms or at all.
Changes in U.S. patent law
could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.
As is the case with other
biopharmaceutical companies, our success is dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents
in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and
inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other
countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced
in our patents or in third-party patents. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith
Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions
that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith
Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which the first inventor
to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance
of a patent by the USPTO and may become involved in post-grant proceedings including post grant review, derivation, reexamination, inter-partes review
or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such
submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could
adversely affect our competitive position. In addition, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on several patent cases have narrowed
the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations.
In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has
created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal
courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability
to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. While we do not believe
that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on these decisions, we cannot predict how future decisions
by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.
We have limited foreign intellectual
property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
We have limited intellectual
property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout
the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can
be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual
property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent
third parties from practicing its inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products
made using its inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions
where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products
to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may
compete with our products and patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them
from competing.
Many companies have encountered
significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain
countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual
property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the
infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to
enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from
other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications
at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we
initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce
our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual
property that we develop or license.
We may be subject to claims
that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third
parties.
As is common in the biotechnology
and pharmaceutical industries, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development
of our product candidates. We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties. We employ individuals
or engage consultants who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims
that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential
information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these
claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction
to our management and employees.
If we fail to comply with any
obligations under our existing license agreements or any future license agreements, or disputes arise with respect to those agreements,
it could have a negative impact on our business and our intellectual property rights.
We are a party to license
agreements with BCM and the Mayo Foundation that impose, and we may enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties
that may impose, diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations
on us. Our rights to use the licensed intellectual property are subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms
of these agreements. Disputes may arise regarding our rights to intellectual property licensed to us from a third party, including
but not limited to:
|
·
|
the scope of rights granted under the license agreement
and other interpretation-related issues;
|
|
·
|
the extent to which our technology and processes infringe
on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
|
|
·
|
the sublicensing of patent and other rights;
|
|
·
|
our diligence obligations under the license agreement
and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;
|
|
·
|
the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting
from the creation or use of intellectual property by us, alone or with our licensors and collaborators;
|
|
·
|
the scope and duration of our payment obligations;
|
|
·
|
our rights upon termination of such agreement; and
|
|
·
|
the scope and duration of exclusivity obligations of
each party to the agreement.
|
If disputes over intellectual
property and other rights that we have licensed or acquired from third parties prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current
licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.
If we fail to comply with our obligations under current or future licensing agreements, these agreements may be terminated or
the scope of our rights under them may be reduced and we might be unable to develop, manufacture or market any product that is
licensed under these agreements.
We may be subject to claims
challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.
We may be subject to
claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual
property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail
in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Such an
outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation
could result in substantial costs and distraction to management and other employees.
Patent terms may be inadequate
to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.
Patents have a limited
lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years
from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection
it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may
be subject to competition from competitive products, including biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development,
testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after
such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide sufficient rights to exclude
others from commercializing products similar or identical to our product candidates.
Certain of our technologies
are in-licensed from third parties, and the protection of those technologies is not entirely within our control.
We have world-wide exclusive
licenses from the Mayo Foundation on (i) a novel set of Class II HER2/neu peptide antigens, (ii) a novel Class I HER2/neu antigen,
and (iii) a novel set of Class II Folate Receptor Alpha peptide antigens. We have a world-wide exclusive license from BCM of the
rights in and to three patent families to develop and commercialize MultiTAA-specific T cell product candidates in the field of
oncology. As a result of these in-licenses, we could lose the right to develop each of the technologies if:
|
·
|
the owners of the patent rights underlying the technologies
that we license do not properly maintain or enforce the patents and intellectual property underlying those properties,
|
|
·
|
the Mayo Foundation or BCM seeks to terminate our license
in contravention of the license agreements;
|
|
·
|
we fail to make all payments due and owing under any
of the licenses; or
|
|
·
|
we fail to obtain on commercially reasonable terms,
if at all, in-licenses from the Mayo Foundation or BCM or others for other rights that are necessary to develop the technology
that we have already in-licensed.
|
If any of the above
occurs, we could lose the right to use the in-licensed intellectual property, which would adversely affect our ability to commercialize
our technologies, products or services. The loss of any current or future licenses from Mayo Foundation or BCM, or the exclusivity
rights provided by such license agreements, could materially harm our financial condition and operating results.
We rely upon patents and licensed
technologies to protect our technology. We may be unable to protect our intellectual property rights, and we may be liable for
infringing the intellectual property rights of others.
Our ability to compete
effectively depends on our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technologies and the proprietary technology of others
with whom we have entered into collaboration and licensing agreements. We own or hold licenses to a number of issued patents and
U.S. pending patent applications, as well as foreign patents and foreign counterparts. Our success depends in part on our ability
to obtain patent protection both in the United States and abroad for our product candidates, as well as the methods for treating
patients in the product indications using these product candidates. Such patent protection is costly to obtain and maintain, and
sufficient funds might not be available. Our ability to protect our product candidates from unauthorized or infringing use by third
parties depends in substantial part on our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents. Due to evolving legal
standards relating to the patentability, validity and enforceability of patents covering pharmaceutical inventions and the scope
of claims made under these patents, our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal
and factual questions. Even if our product candidates, as well as methods for treating patients for prescribed indications using
these product candidates are covered by valid and enforceable patents and have claims with sufficient scope, disclosure and support
in the specification, the patents will provide protection only for a limited amount of time. Accordingly, rights under any issued
patents may not provide us with sufficient protection for our product candidates or provide sufficient protection to afford us
a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes.
In addition, we cannot
guarantee that any patents will be issued from any pending or future patent applications owned by or licensed to us. Even if patents
have been issued or will be issued, we cannot guarantee that the claims of these patents are or will be valid or enforceable or
will provide us with any significant protection against competitive products or otherwise be commercially valuable to us. The laws
of some foreign jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as in the United States and many companies
have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. Furthermore, different
countries have different procedures for obtaining patents, and patents issued in different countries offer different degrees of
protection against use of the patented invention by others. If we encounter such difficulties in protecting or are otherwise precluded
from effectively protecting our intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions, our business prospects could be substantially
harmed.
The patent positions
of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, including our patent positions, involve complex legal and factual questions, and,
therefore, validity and enforceability cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents may be challenged, deemed unenforceable, invalidated,
or circumvented. Our patents can be challenged by our competitors who can argue that our patents are invalid, unenforceable, lack
sufficient written description or enablement, or that the claims of the issued patents should be limited or narrowly construed.
Patents also will not protect our product candidates if competitors devise ways of making or using these product candidates without
infringing our patents.
We will be able to protect
our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our technologies, methods of treatment, product
candidates, and any future products are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets
and we have the funds to enforce our rights, if necessary.
The expiration of our
owned or licensed patents before completing the research and development of our product candidates and receiving all required approvals
in order to sell and distribute the products on a commercial scale can adversely affect our business and results of operations.
We may be involved in lawsuits
to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe
our intellectual property rights or those of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to
file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court
may decide that one or more of the patents which we own or in-license is not valid or is unenforceable, and/or is not infringed.
An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held
unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless
of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our
business. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially
meaningful. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble
damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign
our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.
Periodic maintenance
fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on any issued patent and/or pending patent applications will
be due to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications. The USPTO
and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other
similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply,
and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable
to the particular jurisdiction. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the
patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance
events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to
respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal
documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our
business development.
Interference or derivation
proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions
with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. Should third parties file patent applications or
be issued patents claiming technology also used or claimed by us, we may be required to participate in interference or derivation
proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. We may be required to participate in interference or derivation proceedings
involving our issued patents and pending applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology
or to attempt to license rights from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer
us a license on commercially acceptable terms.
We may be unable to adequately
prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.
We also rely on trade
secrets to protect our proprietary technologies, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable.
However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants,
outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, and other advisors to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary
information. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate
remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our
trade secrets and proprietary information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the
scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive
business position.
If we are unable to obtain
licenses needed for the development of our product candidates, or if we breach any of the agreements under which we license rights
to patents or other intellectual property from third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.
If we are unable to maintain
and/or obtain licenses needed for the development of our product candidates in the future, we may have to develop alternatives
to avoid infringing on the patents of others, potentially causing increased costs and delays in drug development and introduction
or precluding the development, manufacture, or sale of planned product candidates. Some of our licenses provide for limited periods
of exclusivity that require minimum license fees and payments and/or may be extended only with the consent of the licensor. We
might not meet these minimum license fees in the future, or these third parties might not grant extensions on any or all such licenses.
This same restriction may be contained in licenses obtained in the future.
Additionally, the patents
underlying the licenses might not be valid and enforceable. To the extent any product candidates developed by us are based on licensed
technology, royalty payments on the licenses will reduce our gross profit from such product sales and may render the sales of such
product candidates uneconomical. In addition, the loss of any current or future licenses or the exclusivity rights provided therein
could materially harm our business financial condition and our operations.
We may face legal claims; litigation
is expensive and we may not be able to afford the costs.
We may face legal claims
involving stockholders, consumers, competitors, entities from whom we license technology, entities with whom we collaborate, persons
claiming that we are infringing on their intellectual property and others. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have
been characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights, and companies have employed
intellectual property litigation to gain a competitive advantage. We may initiate or become subject to infringement claims or litigation
arising out of patents and pending applications of our competitors, or we may become subject to proceedings initiated by our competitors
or other third parties or the USPTO or applicable foreign bodies to reexamine the patentability of our licensed or owned patents.
In addition, litigation may be necessary to enforce our issued patents, to protect our trade secrets and know-how, or to determine
the enforceability, scope, and validity of the proprietary rights of others.
The costs of litigation
or any proceeding relating to our intellectual property or contractual rights could be substantial even if resolved in our favor.
Some of our competitors or financial funding sources have far greater resources than we do and may be better able to afford the
costs of complex legal procedures. Also, in a lawsuit for infringement or contractual breaches, even if frivolous, we will require
considerable time commitments on the part of management, our attorneys and consultants. Defending these types of proceedings or
legal actions involve considerable expense and could negatively affect our financial results.
Our research and development
programs are subject to uncertainty.
Factors affecting our
research and development programs include, but are not limited to:
|
·
|
limited financial resources from which to budget and
allocate among our product candidates;
|
|
·
|
competition from companies that are substantially and
financially stronger than us;
|
|
·
|
the need for acceptance of our immunotherapies;
|
|
·
|
our ability to anticipate and adapt to a competitive
market and rapid technological developments;
|
|
·
|
the amount and timing of operating costs and capital
expenditures relating to expansion of our business, operations and infrastructure;
|
|
·
|
the need to rely on multiple levels of outside funding
due to the length of drug development cycles and governmental approved protocols associated with the pharmaceutical industry;
|
|
·
|
our dependence on BCM facilities to conduct research
and development activities; and
|
|
·
|
the dependence upon key personnel including key independent
consultants and advisors.
|
Our research and development
expenses may not be consistent from time to time. We may be required to accelerate or delay incurring certain expenses depending
on the results of our studies and the availability of adequate funding.
If we are unable to establish
sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may
be unable to generate any revenue.
We do not currently have
an organization for the sale, marketing and distribution of any approved products and the cost of establishing and maintaining
such an organization may exceed the cost-effectiveness of doing so. In order to market any products approved by the FDA or comparable
foreign regulatory authorities, we must build our sales, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements
with third parties to perform these services. If we are unable to establish adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities,
whether independently or with third parties, we may not be able to generate product revenue and may not become profitable. We will
be competing with many companies that currently have extensive and well-funded sales and marketing operations. Without an internal
commercial organization or the support of a third party to perform sales and marketing functions, we may be unable to compete successfully
against these more established companies.
If we are unable to establish
or manage strategic collaborations in the future, our revenue and drug development may be limited.
Our strategy includes
eventual substantial reliance upon strategic collaborations for marketing and commercialization of our product candidates, and
we may rely even more on strategic collaborations for research, development, marketing and commercialization of our other immunotherapies.
If we are unsuccessful in securing such strategic collaborations, we may be unable to commercialize any approved products as we
have not yet licensed, marketed or sold any of our immunotherapies or entered into successful collaborations for these services
in order to ultimately commercialize our immunotherapies. Establishing strategic collaborations is difficult and time-consuming.
Our discussions with potential collaborators may not lead to the establishment of collaborations on favorable terms, if at all.
Potential collaborators may reject collaborations based upon their assessment of our financial, clinical, regulatory or intellectual
property position. If we successfully establish new collaborations, these relationships may never result in the successful development
or commercialization of our immunotherapies or the generation of sales revenue. To the extent that we enter into co-promotion or
other collaborative arrangements, our product revenues are likely to be lower than if we directly marketed and sold any products
that we may develop.
Management of our relationships
with our collaborators will require:
|
·
|
significant time and effort from our management team;
|
|
·
|
coordination of our research and development programs
with the research and development priorities of our collaborators; and
|
|
·
|
effective allocation of our resources to multiple projects.
|
If we continue to enter
into research and development collaborations at the early phases of drug development, our success will in part depend on the performance
of our corporate collaborators. We will not directly control the amount or timing of resources devoted by our corporate collaborators
to activities related to our immunotherapies. Our corporate collaborators may not commit sufficient resources to their research
and development programs or the commercialization, marketing or distribution of their immunotherapies. If any corporate collaborator
fails to commit sufficient resources, our preclinical or clinical development programs related to this collaboration could be delayed
or terminated. Also, our collaborators may pursue existing or other development-stage products or alternative technologies in preference
to those being developed in collaboration with us. Finally, if we fail to make required milestones or royalty payments to our collaborators
or to observe other obligations in our agreements with them, our collaborators may have the right to terminate those agreements.
We may not be able to license
newly developed MultiTAA-specific T cell technology from BCM and others.
An important element
of our intellectual property portfolio is to license additional rights and technologies from BCM. Our inability to license the
rights and technologies that we have identified, or newly developed MultiTAA-specific T cell technology that we may in the future
identify, could have a material adverse impact on our ability to complete the development of our product candidates or to develop
additional product candidates. No assurance can be given that we will be successful in licensing any additional rights or technologies
from BCM and others. Failure to obtain additional rights and licenses may detrimentally affect our planned development of additional
product candidates and could increase the cost, and extend the timelines associated with our development of such other product
candidates.
The market opportunities for
our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small.
The FDA often approves
new oncology therapies initially only for use in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic disease. We expect to initially
seek approval of our product candidates in this setting. Subsequently, for those product candidates that prove to be sufficiently
beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval in earlier lines of treatment and potentially as a first line therapy. There
is no guarantee, however, that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior
to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials.
Our projections of both
the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these cancers in a position to
receive second or third-line therapy, and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based
on our research and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys
of clinics, patient foundations, or market research by third parties, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change
the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of treatable patients may turn out to be lower than expected.
Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to
treatment with our product candidates and may also be limited by the cost of our treatments and the reimbursement of those treatment
costs by third-party payors. For instance, we expect our lead product candidate to initially target a small patient population
that suffers from AML. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations
are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.
We are required to pay substantial
royalties and lump sum milestone payments under our license agreements with BCM and the Mayo Foundation, and we must meet certain
milestones to maintain our license rights.
Under our license agreement
with BCM for our MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy technologies, we are currently required to pay both substantial milestone payments
and royalties to BCM based on our revenues from sales of any approved products utilizing the licensed technologies, and these payments
could adversely affect the overall profitability for us of any products that we may seek to commercialize. In order to maintain
our license rights under the BCM license agreement, we will need to meet certain specified milestones, subject to certain cure
provisions, in the development of our product candidates. Similarly, we are also required to pay both substantial milestone payments
and royalties to the Mayo Foundation based on our revenues from sales of our products utilizing those licensed technologies. There
is no assurance that we will be successful in meeting all of the milestones in our licenses in the future on a timely basis or
at all.
In addition, upon a liquidity
event (as defined in our BCM license agreement with BCM) of the licensee under the BCM license agreement (which, the licensee shall
be the Company), BCM will receive a liquidity incentive payment of 0.5% of the liquidity event proceeds (as defined in the BCM
license agreement) received by such licensee or its stockholders in the liquidity event, thereby diluting the amount of proceeds
available to the licensee or its stockholders in a liquidity event.
Because our current product
candidates represent, and our other potential product candidates will represent novel approaches to the treatment of disease, there
are many uncertainties regarding the development, the market acceptance, third-party reimbursement coverage and the commercial
potential of our product candidates.
There is no assurance
that the approaches offered by our product candidates will gain broad acceptance among doctors or patients or that governmental
agencies or third-party medical insurers will be willing to provide reimbursement coverage for proposed product candidates. Moreover,
we do not have verifiable internal marketing data regarding the potential size of the commercial market for our product candidates,
nor have we obtained independent marketing surveys to verify the potential size of the commercial markets for our current product
candidates or any future product candidates. Since our current product candidates and any future product candidates will represent
new approaches to treating various conditions, it may be difficult, in any event, to accurately estimate the potential revenues
from these product candidates. Accordingly, we may spend large amounts of money trying to obtain approval for product candidates
that have an uncertain commercial market. The market for any products that we successfully develop will also depend on the cost
of the product. We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate what it will cost to commercially manufacture our
current product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture these products could materially and adversely affect the commercial
viability of these products. Our goal is to reduce the cost of manufacturing our therapies. However, unless we are able to reduce
those costs to an acceptable amount, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product. If we do not successfully develop
and commercialize products based upon our approach or find suitable and economical sources for materials used in the production
of our products, we will not become profitable.
Our MultiTAA-specific
T cell therapy may be provided to patients in combination with other agents provided by third parties. The cost of such combination
therapy may increase the overall cost of MultiTAA-specific T cell therapy and may result in issues regarding the allocation of
reimbursements between our therapy and the other agents, all of which may adversely affect our ability to obtain reimbursement
coverage for the combination therapy from third-party medical insurers.
If product liability lawsuits
are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.
We face an inherent risk
of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize
any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise
unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations
of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent to the product, negligence, strict liability
or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection laws. If we cannot successfully defend
ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our
product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits
or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
|
·
|
decreased demand for our product candidates;
|
|
·
|
injury to our reputation;
|
|
·
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
|
|
·
|
initiation of investigations by regulators;
|
|
·
|
costs to defend the related litigation;
|
|
·
|
a diversion of management’s time and our resources;
|
|
·
|
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or
patients;
|
|
·
|
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing
or promotional restrictions;
|
|
·
|
exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital
resources; and
|
|
·
|
the inability to commercialize any product candidate.
|
Our inability to obtain
sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could inhibit
or prevent the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with collaborators. Our insurance policies may also have various
exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no insurance coverage. While we obtained clinical
trial insurance for our Phase II clinical trials, we may have to pay amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that
exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient
capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses,
such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.
We face significant competition
from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and from non-profit institutions.
Competition in the field
of cancer therapy is intense and is accentuated by the rapid pace of technological development. Research and discoveries by others
may result in breakthroughs that may render our product candidates obsolete even before they generate any revenue. There are products
currently under development by others that could compete with the product candidates that we are developing. Many of our potential
competitors have substantially greater research and development capabilities and manufacturing, marketing, financial and managerial
resources than we have. Our competitors may:
|
·
|
develop safer or more effective immunotherapies and
other therapeutic products;
|
|
·
|
reach the market more rapidly, reducing the potential
sales of our products; or
|
|
·
|
establish superior proprietary positions.
|
Potential competitors
in the market for treating hematological malignancies are companies such as Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech,
Merck, Novartis, Kite Pharma/Gilead, Amgen, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, which already have products on the market or in development.
Other companies, such as Cellectis, Bluebird Bio, and AdaptImmune, which are focused on genetically engineered T cell technologies
to treat cancer, may also be competitors. Furthermore, companies such as Iovance, Immatics, WindMIL Therapeutics, Mana Therapeutics,
Tessa Therapeutics and Torque Therapeutics (now Repetoire Immune Medicines) are developing non-genetically modified T cell therapies
such as tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and marrow infiltrating lymphocytes therapies that may compete with our product candidates.
All these companies, and most of our other current and potential competitors have substantially greater research and development
capabilities and financial, scientific, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, sales, human resources, and experience than we do.
Many of our competitors have several therapeutic products that have already been developed, approved and successfully commercialized,
or are in the process of obtaining regulatory approval for their therapeutic products in the United States and internationally.
Universities and public
and private research institutions in the U.S. and around the world are also potential competitors. While these universities and
public and private research institutions primarily have educational objectives, they may develop proprietary technologies that
lead to other FDA approved therapies or that secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies
and product candidates.
Our lead product candidate
is a therapy for the treatment of refractory AML. Currently, there are numerous companies that are developing various alternate
treatments for AML. Accordingly, we face significant competition in the AML treatment space from multiple companies. Even if we
obtain regulatory approval for our lead product candidate, the availability and price of competitors’ products could limit
the demand and the price we will be able to charge for our therapy. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance
of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from other methods of treatment
to our product, or if physicians switch to other new therapies, drugs or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates
for use in limited circumstances.
As a result of being a public company,
we are obligated to develop and maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting, and any failure to maintain
the adequacy of these internal controls may adversely affect investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the value of
our common stock.
We are required, pursuant to Section 404
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting. This report by management is included in Part II, Item 9A of this Form 10-K. In addition, our
independent registered public accounting firm is required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting in this Form 10-K. We are also required to disclose significant changes made in our internal control procedures on a
quarterly basis.
To comply with Section 404, we have engaged
in the costly and challenging process of compiling the system and processing documentation necessary to perform the evaluation
needed to comply with Section 404. Our compliance with Section 404 requires that we incur substantial professional fees and expend
significant management efforts, and we may need to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company
experience and technical accounting knowledge and compile the system and process documentation necessary to perform the evaluation
needed to comply with Section 404.
During the evaluation and testing process
of our internal controls, if we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we will
be unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. We cannot assure you that there will not be
material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting in the future. Any failure to
maintain internal control over financial reporting could severely inhibit our ability to accurately report our financial condition
or results of operations. If we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our
independent registered public accounting firm determines we have a material weakness or significant deficiency in our internal
control over financial reporting, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports,
the market price of our common stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the Nasdaq, the SEC
or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remedy any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to
implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the
capital markets.
Our business and operations
would suffer in the event of cybersecurity/information systems risk.
Despite the implementation
of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our manufacturers and other third parties on which we rely, are
vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, successful breaches, employee
malfeasance, or human or technological error, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. In addition, our systems safeguard
important confidential personal data regarding our subjects. If a disruption event were to occur and cause interruptions in our
operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial
data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly
increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of
or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability
and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.
We maintain cybersecurity insurance however an incident may
exceed our coverage premiums.
We have cybersecurity
insurance for a breach event covering expenses for notification, credit monitoring, investigation, crisis management, public relations
and legal advice. We also maintain property and casualty insurance that may cover restoration of data, certain physical damage
or third-party injuries caused by potential cybersecurity incidents. However, damage and claims arising from such incidents may
not be covered or may exceed the amount of any insurance available.
We may incur costs of addressing
a cybersecurity incident.
Cybersecurity incidents
have increased in number and severity recently and it is expected that these trends will continue. Should we be affected by such
an incident, we may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences, which may include:
|
·
|
investigation costs and costs to engage specialized
consultants;
|
|
·
|
remediation costs, such as liability for stolen assets
or information, repairs of system damage, and incentives to customers or business partners in an effort to maintain relationships
after an attack; and
|
|
·
|
litigation and legal risks, including regulatory actions
by state and federal regulators.
|
Our ability to use net operating
losses and certain other tax attributes to offset future taxable income may be subject to limitation.
Our net operating loss,
or NOL, carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities because of their limited duration
or because of restrictions under U.S. tax law. Our NOLs generated in tax years ending on or prior to December 31, 2017 are permitted
to be carried forward for only 20 years under applicable U.S. tax law. Our federal NOLs generated in tax years ending after December
31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of federal NOLs generated in tax years beginning after December
31, 2020 is subject to certain limitations. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act.
In addition, under Section
382 and Section 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or, the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law,
if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” its ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change
tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset its post-change income may be limited. A Section 382 “ownership change”
generally occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who own at least 5% of our stock increase their ownership
by more than 50 percentage points (by value) over their lowest ownership percentage over a rolling three-year period. We may have
experienced ownership changes in the past and may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of shifts in our stock
ownership (some of which are outside our control). As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change
NOLs to offset such taxable income may be subject to limitations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our
use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is
suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.
Consequently, even if
we achieve profitability, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our net operating loss carryforwards and certain
other tax attributes, which could have a material adverse effect on cash flow and results of operations.
Changes in tax laws or regulations
could materially adversely affect our company.
New tax laws or regulations
could be enacted at any time, and existing tax laws or regulations could be interpreted, modified or applied in a manner that is
adverse to us, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition. For example, legislation enacted in 2017, informally
titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or Tax Act, enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws, including changes in corporate
tax rates, the utilization of our NOLs and other deferred tax assets, the deductibility of expenses, and the taxation of foreign
earnings. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to the Tax Act may affect us,
and certain aspects of the Tax Act could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, modified certain provisions of the Tax Act. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what
extent various states will conform to the Tax Act, the CARES Act, or any newly enacted federal tax legislation. The impact of changes
under the Tax Act, the CARES Act, or future reform legislation could increase our future U.S. tax expense and could have a material
adverse impact on our business and financial condition.
Risks Related to
Government Regulation
We are subject
to extensive regulation, which can be costly, time consuming and can subject us to unanticipated delays; even if we obtain regulatory
approval for some of our products, those product candidates may still face regulatory difficulties.
All of our current and
future product candidates, cell processing and manufacturing activities, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA in
the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. The process of obtaining FDA and other required regulatory
approvals, including foreign approvals, is expensive and often takes many years and can vary substantially based upon the type,
complexity and novelty of the products involved. In addition, regulatory agencies may lack experience with our technologies and
product candidates, which may lengthen the regulatory review process, increase our development costs and delay or prevent their
commercialization.
No adoptive T cell therapy
using MultiTAA-specific T cells has been approved for marketing in the U.S. by the FDA. Consequently, there is no precedent for
the successful commercialization of products based on our technologies. In addition, we have had only limited experience in filing
and pursuing applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals, which may impede our ability to obtain timely FDA approvals,
if at all. We have not yet sought FDA approval for any adoptive T cell therapy product. We will not be able to commercialize any
of our potential product candidates until we obtain FDA approval, and so any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, FDA approval
would harm our proposed business.
If we violate regulatory
requirements at any stage, whether before or after marketing approval is obtained, we may be fined, forced to remove a product
from the market and experience other adverse consequences including delay, which could materially harm our business development.
Additionally, we may not be able to obtain the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the promotion of our products. We may
also be required to undertake post-marketing trials. Prescription drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications in accordance
with the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label
uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians
may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate
the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments but the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject
of off-label use of their products. In addition, if we or others identify side effects after any of our adoptive T cell therapy
products are on the market, or if manufacturing problems occur, regulatory approval may be withdrawn, and reformulation of our
products may be required.
The FDA regulatory approval
process is lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval
of our product candidates.
We have not previously
submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. A BLA must include extensive preclinical
and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired
indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the CMC for the product. We expect the novel nature of
our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA has limited experience
with commercial development of cell therapies for cancer. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates
may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained. We may also experience delays in completing
planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:
|
·
|
the availability of financial resources to commence
and complete the planned trials;
|
|
·
|
reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective
CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different
CROs and trial sites;
|
|
·
|
obtaining approval by an independent IRB at each clinical
trial site;
|
|
·
|
recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;
|
|
·
|
having patients complete a trial or return for post-treatment
follow-up;
|
|
·
|
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocol
or dropping out of a trial;
|
|
·
|
adding new clinical trial sites; or
|
|
·
|
manufacturing sufficient quantities of qualified materials
under cGMPs and applying them on a subject by subject basis for use in clinical trials.
|
Further, the performance
of our CROs may also be interrupted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including due to travel or quarantine policies, heightened
exposure of CRO staff who are healthcare providers to COVID-19 or prioritization of resources toward the pandemic. We could also
encounter delays if physicians face unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product
candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles. Further, a clinical trial
may be suspended or terminated by us, the IRB for the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the Data and Safety
Monitoring Board or Committee for such trial, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors. Those factors
could include failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection
of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical
hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes
in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience
termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our
product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing
our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability
to commence product sales and generate revenue.
Obtaining and maintaining regulatory
approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval
of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.
Obtaining and maintaining
regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain
regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may
have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of
a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing
and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements
and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical
studies or clinical trials as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other
jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it
can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject
to approval.
We may also submit marketing
applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval
of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals
and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could
delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in
international markets and/or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability
to realize the full market potential of any approved product candidates will be harmed.
Even if we receive regulatory
approval of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing quality and regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review,
which may result in significant additional expense, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements
or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.
Any regulatory approvals
that we receive for our product candidates will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate.
The FDA may also require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail
requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted
distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory
authority approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting,
storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing
regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration,
as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and cGCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of
previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with
our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among
other things:
|
·
|
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our
product candidates, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;
|
|
·
|
fines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials;
|
|
·
|
refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications
or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or revocation of license approvals;
|
|
·
|
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit
the import or export of our product candidates; and
|
|
·
|
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal
penalties.
|
The FDA’s and other
regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit
or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation
that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable
to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain
regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.
Any relationships with healthcare
professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers (actual and potential) and third-party payors in connection with
our current and future business activities are and will continue to be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare
laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face penalties, contractual damages,
reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment or restructuring of our operations.
Our business operations and activities
may be directly, or indirectly, subject to various federal and state healthcare laws, including without limitation, fraud and abuse
laws, false claims laws, data privacy and security laws, as well as transparency laws regarding payments or other items of value
provided to healthcare providers. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of business activities, including, but not limited
to, research, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive
programs and other business arrangements. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators
and research subjects, as well as current and future sales, marketing, patient co-payment assistance and education programs.
Such laws include:
|
·
|
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute which prohibits,
among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration,
directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or
the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program
such as Medicare and Medicaid;
|
|
·
|
the federal civil and criminal false claims laws,
including the federal civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws, which impose criminal and civil penalties against
individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government,
claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay
money to the federal government;
|
|
·
|
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare
benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;
|
|
·
|
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology
for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and its implementing regulations, which also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual
terms, on covered entities, including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their
respective business associates that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or
on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable
health information;
|
|
·
|
the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which
requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare,
Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians, as defined by
such law, and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually
to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and
|
|
·
|
analogous state, local, and foreign laws and regulations,
such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare
items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical
companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance
promulgated by the federal government; state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and
other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures or drug pricing; state and local
laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; state and local “drug takeback” laws and
regulations; and state and foreign laws governing 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.
|
Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements
will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. While our interactions with healthcare professionals
have been structured to comply with these laws and related guidance, it is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities
will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting
applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws. If our operations or activities are found to be in violation of any of the
laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to, without limitation, significant
civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation
in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject
to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages,
reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could
adversely affect our ability to operate.
In addition, any sales of our product once
commercialized outside the U.S. will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among
other foreign laws.
Recently enacted and future
legislation in the United States and other countries may affect the prices we may obtain for our product candidates and increase
the difficulty and cost to commercialize our product candidates.
In the United States
and many other countries, rising healthcare costs have been a concern for governments, patients and the health insurance sector,
which has resulted in a number of changes to laws and regulations, and may result in further legislative and regulatory action
regarding the healthcare and health insurance systems that could affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for
which we have obtained marketing approval.
For example, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the ACA was enacted in the
United States in March 2010, with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access to healthcare,
and includes measures to change health care delivery, increase the number of individuals with insurance, ensure access to certain
basic health care services, and contain the rising cost of care. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed executive orders
and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress
has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal
legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment
imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly
referred to as the “individual mandate”. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminates, effective
January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device
tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other
things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical
manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to
as the “donut hole.” On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional
in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Further,
on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate
was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA
are invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review
this case, and has allotted one hour for oral arguments, which are expected to occur in the fall. It is unclear how such litigation
and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business. Congress may consider other legislation to
repeal or replace elements of the ACA. These actions may result in increased health insurance premiums and reduce the number of
people with health insurance in the United States and have other effects that could adversely affect U.S. health insurance markets
and the ability of patients to have access to therapies that our product candidates can provide.
In addition, other federal
health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act
of 2011 and subsequent legislative amendments thereto, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year
through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The CARES Act, which was signed into law in March 2020 and is designed
to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare
sequester from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030. Further, the American
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for
the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act
of 2015 ended the use of the statutory formula, also referred to as the Sustainable Growth Rate, for clinician payment and also
introduced a quality payment program under which certain individual Medicare providers will be subject to certain incentives or
penalties based on new program quality standards also referred to as the Quality Payment Program. Payment adjustments for the Medicare
quality payment program was set to begin in 2019. This program provides clinicians with two ways to participate, including through
the Advanced Alternative Payment Models, or APMs, and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS. In November 2019, CMS
issued a final rule finalizing the changes to the Quality Payment Program. At this time, it is unclear how the introduction of
the quality payment program will impact overall physician reimbursement under the Medicare program. Any reduction in reimbursement
from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.
Also, there has been heightened governmental
scrutiny recently over pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny
has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among
other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs,
and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s
budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug
prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and
biosimilar drugs. . On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling
for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option
to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Further,
the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs
that contained proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs,
incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by
consumers. The Department of Health and Human Resources has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others
under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of
using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective
January 1, 2019. Although a number of these, and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress
and the executive branch have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control
drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control
pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on
certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation
from other countries and bulk purchasing.
The combination of healthcare
cost containment measures, increased health insurance costs, reduction of the number of people with health insurance coverage,
as well as future legislation and regulations focused on reducing healthcare costs by reducing the cost of, or reimbursement and
access to, pharmaceutical products, may limit or delay our ability to commercialize our products, generate revenue or attain profitability.
It is possible that additional governmental action is taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, on April 18, 2020,
CMS announced that ACA qualified health plan issuers under the ACA may suspend activities related to the collection and reporting
of quality data that would have otherwise been reported between May and June 2020 given the challenges healthcare providers are
facing responding to the COVID-19 virus.
Our employees, independent
contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance
with regulatory standards and requirements.
We are exposed to the
risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and
vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the
laws of the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other
similar foreign regulatory bodies, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse
laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws, or report financial information or data accurately or
to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing
those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated
with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with
principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular,
the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare
industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws
and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s),
certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the
improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials.
Efforts to ensure that
our business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental
and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations
or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted
against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or in asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant
impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement,
monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs,
contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which
could adversely affect our ability to develop our business. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product
candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above,
among other foreign laws.
We may not obtain or maintain
the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity.
Regulatory authorities
in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations
as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a
rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or
more than 200,000 individuals in the United States for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and
making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in
the United States for that drug or biologic. Generally, a product that has orphan drug designation and subsequently receives the
first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation is entitled to orphan drug exclusive approval (or exclusivity),
which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for
seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity.
A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication
for which it received orphan designation.
The FDA has granted orphan
drug designation for MT-401 for the treatment of AML after receiving an allogenic stem cell transplant. We may seek orphan drug
designation for other indications or product candidates. Even if we were to obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate,
we may not obtain orphan exclusivity and that exclusivity may not effectively protect the drug from the competition of different
drugs for the same condition, which could be approved during the exclusivity period. Additionally, after an orphan drug is approved,
the FDA could subsequently approve another application for the same drug for the same indication if the FDA concludes that the
later drug is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusive marketing
rights in the United States also may be lost if the FDA or European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) later 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. The failure to obtain an orphan drug designation for any product
candidates we may develop, the inability to maintain that designation for the duration of the applicable period, or the inability
to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity could reduce our ability to make sufficient sales of the applicable product candidate
to balance our expenses incurred to develop it, which would have a negative impact on our operational results and financial condition.
New regulatory pathways for
biosimilar competition could reduce the duration of market exclusivity for our products.
Under the federal ACA
enacted in 2010, there is an abbreviated path in the United States for regulatory approval of products that are demonstrated to
be “biosimilar” or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product. The ACA provides a regulatory
mechanism that allows for FDA approval of biologic drugs that are similar to (but not generic copies of) innovative drugs on the
basis of less extensive data than is required by a full BLA. Under this regulation, an application for approval of a biosimilar
may be filed four years after approval of the innovator product. However, qualified innovative biological products will receive
12 years of regulatory exclusivity, meaning that the FDA may not approve a biosimilar version until 12 years after the innovative
biological product was first approved by the FDA. However, the term of regulatory exclusivity may not remain at 12 years in the
United States and could be shortened. A number of jurisdictions outside of the United States have also established abbreviated
pathways for regulatory approval of biological products that are biosimilar to earlier versions of biological products. For example,
the European Union has had an established regulatory pathway for biosimilars since 2005.
The increased likelihood
of biosimilar competition has increased the risk of loss of innovators’ market exclusivity. Due to this risk, and uncertainties
regarding patent protection, if one of our late-stage product candidates or other clinical candidates are approved for marketing,
it is not possible to predict the length of market exclusivity for any particular product with certainty based solely on the expiration
of the relevant patent(s) or the current forms of regulatory exclusivity. It is also not possible to predict changes in United States
regulatory law that might reduce biological product regulatory exclusivity. The loss of market exclusivity for a product would
likely materially and negatively affect revenues from product sales of that product and thus our financial results and condition.
Changes in laws and regulations
affecting the healthcare industry could adversely affect our business.
As described above, the
ACA and potential regulations thereunder easing the entry of competing follow-on biologics into the marketplace, other new legislation
or implementation of existing statutory provisions on importation of lower-cost competing drugs from other jurisdictions, and legislation
on comparative effectiveness research are examples of previously enacted and possible future changes in laws that could adversely
affect our business.
The current U.S. administration
and Congress could carry out significant changes in legislation, regulation, and government policy (including with respect to the
possible repeal of all or portions of the ACA, possible changes in the existing treaty and trade relationships with other countries,
and tax reform). While it is not possible to predict whether and when any such changes will occur, changes in the laws, regulations,
and policies governing the development and approval of our product candidates and the commercialization, importation, and reimbursement
of our product candidates could adversely affect our business.
Risks Related to
our Securities
The price of our stock may
be volatile.
The trading price of
our common stock may fluctuate substantially. The price of our common stock that will prevail in the market may be higher or lower
than the price at which our shares of common stock, depending on many factors, some of which are beyond our control and may not
be related to our operating performance. These fluctuations could cause you to lose part or all of your investment in our common
stock. Those factors that could cause fluctuations include, but are not limited to, the following:
|
·
|
price and volume of fluctuations in the overall stock market from time to time;
|
|
·
|
fluctuations in stock market prices and trading volumes of similar companies;
|
|
·
|
actual or anticipated changes in our net loss or fluctuations in our operating results or in the
expectations of securities analysts;
|
|
·
|
results of our preclinical studies and clinical trials or delays in anticipated timing;
|
|
·
|
the issuance of new equity securities pursuant to a future offering, including issuances of preferred
stock;
|
|
·
|
announcements of new collaboration agreements with strategic partners or developments by our existing
collaboration partners;
|
|
·
|
announcements of acquisitions, mergers or business combinations;
|
|
·
|
announcements of technological innovations, new commercial products, failures of products or product
candidates, or progress toward commercialization by our competitors or peers;
|
|
·
|
general economic conditions and trends;
|
|
·
|
positive and negative events relating to healthcare and the overall pharmaceutical and biotechnology
sectors;
|
|
·
|
major catastrophic events;
|
|
·
|
sales of large blocks of our stock and sales by insiders and our institutional investors;
|
|
·
|
departures of key personnel;
|
|
·
|
changes in the regulatory status of our immunotherapies, including results of our clinical trials;
|
|
·
|
events affecting BCM, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research or any future
collaborators;
|
|
·
|
announcements of new product candidates or technologies, commercial relationships or other events
by us or our competitors;
|
|
·
|
regulatory developments in the United States and other countries, including changes in the structure
of healthcare payment systems;
|
|
·
|
failure of our common stock to maintain listing requirements on Nasdaq;
|
|
·
|
the outcome of any litigation to which we are a party;
|
|
·
|
changes in accounting principles; and
|
|
·
|
discussion of the Company or our stock price by the financial and scientific press and in online
investor communities.
|
The stock market in general,
and the Nasdaq Global Market and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations
that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies, including very recently in
connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in decreased stock prices for many companies notwithstanding
the lack of a fundamental change in their underlying business models or prospects. Broad market and industry factors, including
potentially worsening economic conditions and other adverse effects or developments relating to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic,
may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, following
periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought
against that company. Due to the potential volatility of our stock price, we may therefore be the target of securities litigation
in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from
our business.
A limited public trading market
may cause volatility in the price of our common stock.
The listing of our common
stock on Nasdaq does not assure that a meaningful, consistent and liquid trading market currently exists or will exist in the future.
In recent years, the stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have particularly affected the market
prices of many smaller companies like us. Our common stock is thus subject to this volatility. Sales of substantial amounts of
common stock, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect prevailing market prices of our common stock
and our stock price may decline substantially in a short time and our stockholders could suffer losses or be unable to liquidate
their holdings. Our stock is thinly traded due to the limited number of shares available for trading thus causing large swings
in price. There is no established trading market for our warrants.
The market prices for our common
stock may be adversely impacted by future events.
Market prices for our
common stock will be influenced by a number of factors, including:
|
·
|
the issuance of new equity securities pursuant to a future offering, including issuances of shares
upon the exercise of outstanding warrants or the issuance of preferred stock;
|
|
·
|
changes in interest rates;
|
|
·
|
competitive developments, including announcements by competitors of new products or services or
significant contracts, acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments;
|
|
·
|
variations in quarterly operating results;
|
|
·
|
change in financial estimates by securities analysts;
|
|
·
|
the depth and liquidity of the market for our common stock and warrants;
|
|
·
|
investor perceptions of us and the pharmaceutical and biotech industries generally; and
|
|
·
|
general economic and other national and global conditions, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
and related global economic uncertainty.
|
Sales of additional equity securities
may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and your rights may be reduced.
We expect to continue to incur drug development
and sale, general and administrative costs. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect
to fund our cash requirements through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings and potential collaboration, license and
development agreements. We do not currently have a committed external source of funds. To the extent that we sell equity securities
or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation
or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. The sale or the proposed sale of substantial amounts
of our common stock or other equity securities in the public markets may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
Debt financing and preferred equity 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.
If we raise additional funds through collaborations,
strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable
rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that
may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be
required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our drug development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop
and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.
Because we have a significant
number of additional authorized shares of common stock available for issuance and outstanding warrants to purchase our common stock,
our stockholders may experience dilution in the future and it may adversely affect the market price of our securities.
We are currently authorized
to issue 150 million shares of our common stock. As of March 31, 2020, we had 46.5 million shares of our common stock issued and
outstanding. Those outstanding shares represent a minority of our authorized shares, meaning that the ownership position of the
current stockholders could be diluted significantly were we to issue a large number of additional shares. In addition, as of March
31, 2020, there were outstanding warrants to purchase up to approximately 21.4 million shares of our common stock at a weighted
average exercise price of $4.69 per share, and options exercisable for an aggregate of approximately 6.3 million shares
of common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $6.60 per share. We have registered the resale of the shares issuable
upon exercise of our outstanding warrants, and as a result the shares issued upon exercise will be tradable by the exercising party.
Upon such registration, the holders may sell these shares in the public markets from time to time, without limitations on the timing,
amount, or method of sale. If our stock price rises, the holders may exercise their warrants and options and sell a large number
of shares. This could cause the market price of our common stock to decline and cause existing stockholders to experience significant
further dilution.
The accounting treatment for
certain of our warrants is complex and subject to judgments concerning the valuation of embedded derivative rights within the applicable
securities. Fluctuations in the valuation of these rights could cause us to take charges to our statement of operations and make
our financial results unpredictable.
Certain of our outstanding
warrants contain or contained prior to being amended, or may be deemed to contain from time to time, embedded derivative rights
in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). There is a risk that questions could arise
from investors or regulatory authorities concerning the appropriate accounting treatment of these instruments, which could require
us to restate previous financial statements, which in turn could adversely affect our reputation, as well as our results of operations.
These derivative rights, or similar rights in securities we may issue in the future, need to be, or may need to be, separately
valued as of the end of each accounting period in accordance with GAAP. We record these embedded derivatives as liabilities at
issuance, valued using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model and are subject to revaluation at each reporting date. Any change
in fair value between reporting periods is reported on our statement of operations. At March 31, 2020, the fair value of the derivative
liability-warrants was $0. Changes in the valuations of these rights, the valuation methodology or the assumptions on which the
valuations are based could cause us to take charges to our earnings, which would adversely impact our results of operations. Moreover,
the methodologies, assumptions and related interpretations of accounting or regulatory authorities associated with these embedded
derivatives are complex and, in some cases uncertain, which could cause our accounting for these derivatives, and as a result,
our financial results, to fluctuate.
We do not intend to pay cash
dividends.
We have not declared
or paid any cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not anticipate declaring or paying cash dividends for the foreseeable
future. Any future determination as to the payment of cash dividends on our common stock will be at our board of directors’
discretion and depends on our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements and other factors that our board of
directors considers to be relevant.