THRX Theseus Pharmaceuticals Inc

Table of Contents

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-40869

Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

​

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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

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

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

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

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

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

​

​

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

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

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

As of June 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second quarter, there was no public market for the registrant’s common stock. The registrant’s common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on October 7, 2021. The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock as reported on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on October 6, 2021 was $349.2 million. For purposes of this disclosure, shares of common stock held by each executive officer, director and stockholder known by the registrant to be affiliated with such individuals based on public filings and other information known to the registrant have been excluded since such persons may be deemed affiliates. This determination of executive officer or affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 1, 2022, there were 38,702,650 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement relating to its 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 are incorporated herein by reference in Part III

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

FORM 10-K

INDEX

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, including the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” as well as information included in oral statements or other written statements made or to be made by us, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements contained in this Annual Report other than statements of historical fact, including statements regarding our future operating results and financial position, our business strategy and plans, market growth, and our objectives for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “potentially,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “target,” “plan,” “expect,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

1

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

We caution you that the foregoing list may not contain all of the forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report.

​

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, including those described in the section titled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the future events and trends discussed in this Annual Report may not

2

Table of Contents

occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

​

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, performance or achievements. We undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this Annual Report or to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations, except as required by law.

​

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

​

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report and have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with the understanding that our actual future results, performance and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

​

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

​

Our business and our ability to execute our business strategy are subject to numerous risks. These risks include, among others:

​

​

​

​

​

​

3

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

4

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Pan-KIT Inhibitor Program—THE-630

Our lead product candidate, THE-630, is a pan-KIT inhibitor for the treatment of patients with advanced GIST. Current estimates for the total number of GIST cases diagnosed each year in the United States range from approximately 4,000 to 6,000. Prevalence is estimated to be 13.5 to 15.5 cases per 100,000 people, and therefore approximately 48,000 patients are estimated to be living with GIST in the United States each year. Front-line intervention is surgical removal of cancerous tissue when possible. In cases where the tumor has spread and/or surgery cannot be performed, the TKI imatinib is often used as first-line therapy. However, most patients receiving imatinib relapse and subsequent lines of therapy are less effective.

​

THE-630 is a novel small molecule inhibitor that has been designed to block activity of all major classes of activating and resistance mutations of KIT that drive GIST. Existing TKIs are limited by the emergence of resistance mutations, as clinical data have demonstrated their inability to inhibit disease progression as these mutations arise in tumor cell populations. THE-630 is a pan-KIT inhibitor for GIST, with potent activity demonstrated in cellular assays and strong anti-tumor activity in animal models against both activating and resistance mutations. We believe THE-630, if approved, has the potential to be a next-generation KIT inhibitor based on its promising inhibitory profile and favorable drug-like properties, as well as its ability to achieve predicted pan-KIT inhibitory blood concentrations at tolerable doses in preclinical safety studies.

​

In January 2022, we announced that we had commenced dosing patients in a phase 1/2 dose escalation and dose expansion clinical trial for the evaluation of THE-630 in patients with advanced GIST whose disease has developed resistance to prior KIT-targeting therapies. We expect to present initial data from the Phase 1 portion of the clinical trial in the first half of 2023. Assuming positive clinical data and subject to discussions with the FDA, our registration strategy will evaluate THE-630 in two different GIST populations. Our initial registration strategy will focus on GIST patients who have already received four prior lines of therapy, or fifth-line GIST, where there is currently no available therapy and therefore a significant unmet medical need. Given its broad mutational coverage as a pan-KIT inhibitor, we also plan to evaluate THE-630 in GIST patients who have already received one prior line of therapy, or second-line GIST. Based on the preclinical profile, we believe THE-630 has the potential to deliver meaningful clinical benefit over the currently available standard of care.

Fourth-Generation EGFR Inhibitor Development Program

We are developing a next-generation EGFR inhibitor that is active against C797S, the most common EGFR mutation that causes resistance to first- or later-line osimertinib treatment in patients with NSCLC. NSCLC is the most common form of lung cancer with approximately 10% to 50% of NSCLC tumors driven by activating mutations in EGFR, depending on geographic region. Treatment of EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC patients with first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and dacomitinib, substantively improved outcomes for patients compared to chemotherapy. However, resistance eventually develops in most patients, leading to disease progression, with about half of patients’ tumors developing the T790M EGFR mutation. Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI, was initially developed to treat T790M positive disease in patients progressing on a first- or second-generation TKI. Subsequently, it was approved in the first-line setting where it improved progression-free and overall survival compared to earlier-generation

6

Table of Contents

inhibitors. However, most patients receiving treatment eventually progress. A subset of patients on osimertinib, either in first- or later-line therapy, will still progress due to further EGFR resistance mutations, with C797S being the most common of such mutations. A significant unmet medical need remains for patients with this subset of EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

​

To address this problem of on-target resistance, we have developed a series of fourth-generation EGFR inhibitors, designed to inhibit the full range of single-, double- and triple-mutant variants found in the tumors of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC that have developed resistance to osimertinib in first- or later-line therapy, including the C797S mutation. We intend to nominate a development candidate from our EGFR inhibitor program in the third quarter of 2022, and thereafter initiate IND-enabling studies. We expect to file an IND for this program in 2023.

Our Strategy

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on improving the lives of cancer patients through the discovery, development and commercialization of transformative targeted therapies. Our development programs are designed to address drug resistance mutations in key driver oncogenes, which are mutated genes that cause cancer. The key elements of our strategy to achieve our mission are:

​

​

​

​

7

Table of Contents

​

Our Research and Discovery Approach

Our approach to drug discovery is characterized by the identification of therapeutic solutions responsive to resistance mutations in certain cancers with clear unmet need. Our drug discovery approach is built on three pillars:

​

​

​

​

Our Pan-KIT Inhibitor Program: THE-630

Summary Overview

Our lead product candidate, THE-630, is a next-generation KIT inhibitor for the treatment of patients with advanced GIST. The worldwide annual incidence of GIST is estimated to be between 11 and 19.6 cases per million people. Current estimates for the total number of GIST cases diagnosed each year in the United States range from approximately 4,000 to 6,000. Prevalence is estimated to be 13.5 to 15.5 cases per 100,000 people, and therefore approximately 48,000 patients are estimated to be living with GIST in the United States each year. We estimate that the annual addressable population for first- and second-line unresectable or metastatic GIST in the United States is approximately 3,200 and 2,200 patients, respectively. Approximately 80% are driven by activating mutations in the KIT kinase. Front line intervention is surgical

8

Table of Contents

removal of cancerous tissue when possible. In cases where the tumor has spread and/or surgery cannot be performed, the TKI imatinib is often used as first-line therapy. Most patients receiving imatinib relapse, often with multiple KIT kinase resistance mutations, and subsequent lines of therapy are typically less effective, meaning that all patients who relapse are expected to ultimately succumb to their cancer. Therefore, a significant unmet need exists for GIST patients with KIT resistance mutations.

​

THE-630 is a novel small molecule inhibitor that blocks activity of all major classes of KIT activating and resistance mutations that drive GIST. Existing TKIs are limited by the emergence of resistance mutations, as clinical data have demonstrated their inability to inhibit disease progression as these mutations arise in tumor cell populations. THE-630 is a pan-KIT inhibitor for GIST, with potent activity demonstrated in cellular assays and strong anti-tumor activity in animal models against both activating and resistance mutations. We believe THE-630, if approved, has the potential to be a next-generation KIT inhibitor based on its promising inhibitory profile and favorable drug-like properties, as well as its ability to achieve predicted pan-KIT inhibitory blood concentrations at tolerable doses in preclinical safety studies.

​

We have recently initiated a phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion clinical trial in patients with previously-treated GIST and expect to present initial data from the Phase 1 portion of the clinical trial in the first half of 2023. Assuming positive clinical data and subject to discussions with the FDA, our registration strategy will evaluate THE-630 in two different GIST populations. Our initial registration strategy will focus on fifth-line GIST, where there is currently no available therapy and therefore a significant unmet medical need. Given its broad mutational coverage as a pan-KIT inhibitor, we also plan to evaluate THE-630 in second-line GIST. The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to THE-630 for the treatment of GIST.

Overview of GIST and KIT Mutations

GIST is the most common tumor of the gastrointestinal tract and presents most often in the stomach or small intestine. In adult GIST patients, approximately 95% of tumors overexpress the tyrosine kinase receptor KIT, while approximately 80% have KIT gene mutations that activate the KIT receptor. In normal cells, KIT RTK activity is regulated by binding of the endogenous ligand for the receptor. Activation of the KIT kinase caused by mutations leads to uncontrolled cancer cell growth, leading to tumor formation. As shown in Figure 1 below, there are two major classes of activating mutations in KIT that occur in different exons of the gene:

​

​

​

Successful targeting of KIT activating mutations by existing KIT inhibitors almost always leads to the emergence of one or more additional mutations, at separate sites in the protein, that make the tumor resistant to the inhibitor. As shown in Figure 1 below, there are also two major classes of resistance mutations that occur in different exons of the gene:

​

9

Table of Contents

Figure 1. The major classes of activating mutations in the KIT gene in GIST patients are found in exons 9 and 11 and the major classes of resistance mutations in the KIT gene in GIST patients are found in exons 13/14 and 17/18.

Current Treatment Paradigm in GIST

Patients diagnosed with localized GIST will typically undergo surgery to remove their tumor lesions, and those at high risk of recurrence may then receive post-operative imatinib as adjuvant therapy. Patients who present with metastatic disease at diagnosis or those who are not eligible to undergo surgical resection have several systemic treatment options at different lines of therapy. As summarized in Figure 2 below, the majority of patients receiving imatinib therapy will experience tumor progression and then progress relatively rapidly on second-, third-, and fourth-line treatments, successively. Patient outcomes are substantially worse following imatinib failure, with response rates of less than 10% for each successive line of therapy.

Figure 2. Response rate and progression-free survival, or PFS, in successive lines of KIT-targeting therapies. Overall response rate, or ORR, includes all patients who had a 30% or greater reduction in tumor size. PFS is the length of time after initiation of treatment that a patient lives with the cancer but it does not get worse.

Limitations of Current Treatment Options and Unmet Medical Need in GIST

Despite the availability of multiple TKIs as treatment options across various lines of disease, the five-year overall survival rate of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST is less than 60%.

​

The clinical benefits of second-line sunitinib and third-line regorafenib are limited: reported median PFS is six months or less in each case, and dose reductions and dose interruptions due to toxicity are commonly reported. Ripretinib has a similarly low median PFS of approximately six months in patients who have relapsed following treatment with imatinib, sunitinib and regorafenib.

10

Table of Contents

​

Disease progression is most often driven by mutations in KIT that create resistance to the currently approved KIT targeting therapies. Such resistance mutations are found in up to 90% of tumors after imatinib failure. The resistance mutations are mainly found in two regions of the kinase domain: the ATP-binding pocket encoded within exons 13 and 14 and the activation loop encoded within exons 17 and 18.

In addition, the heterogeneity of tumor cell populations complicates the treatment of resistant GIST. Patients frequently have multiple subclones of their cancer, each with a different resistance mutation in KIT. As a result, the treatment with a TKI that only inhibits some of the resistance mutations, and therefore growth of only some of the tumor cells, will likely result in rapid outgrowth of unaffected subclones and overall disease progression.

​

Imatinib and sunitinib have activity against the activating mutations in exons 9 and 11, although potency against exon 9 mutations is reported to be lower for imatinib. Imatinib has relatively weak activity against resistance mutations in both the ATP-binding pocket and the activation loop, located in exons 13, 14, 17 and 18. Sunitinib is active against imatinib-resistant GIST subclones with resistance mutations in exons 13 and 14 that encode the ATP-binding pocket, including the common V654A mutation. However, it has poor activity against subclones with KIT activation loop mutations encoded by exons 17 and 18. Compared to sunitinib, regorafenib has somewhat more potent activity against activation loop mutations, but is less potent against ATP-binding pocket mutations. In the fourth-line setting, ripretinib yielded a low response rate and clinical benefit was relatively limited, with half of ripretinib-treated patients in a phase 3 clinical trial experiencing progression within the first six months of treatment. Furthermore, in preclinical studies, ripretinib reportedly showed relatively low potency against ATP-binding-pocket mutations.  

​

The toxicity profile of some of these therapies also significantly limits their utility in treating patients with advanced GIST. In particular, sunitinib and regorafenib are multi-kinase inhibitors that are associated with more toxicity than imatinib, with side effects including severe hand-foot syndrome, thrombocytopenia, thyroid dysfunction and liver enzyme elevation.

​

Our Solution: THE-630, a Pan-KIT Inhibitor

THE-630 is a pan-KIT inhibitor designed to address the limitations of previous generations of TKIs. We designed THE-630 to have potent activity against both major classes of activating KIT mutations (exons 9 and 11), and both major classes of KIT resistance mutations that arise in: (1) the ATP-binding pocket (exons 13 and 14) and (2) the activation loop (exons 17 and 18). In preclinical studies, THE-630 achieved the predicted pan-KIT inhibitory blood concentrations at tolerable doses and induced significant anti-tumor activity. Given the heterogeneity of the tumor cell populations in GIST patients whose tumors progress on imatinib, and the incomplete KIT mutational coverage provided by later lines of therapy, we believe developing a next-generation KIT compound that effectively inhibits all major classes of KIT activating and resistance mutations should improve response rates and increase PFS in GIST patients in both later and earlier lines of therapy.

​

Broad KIT Mutation Coverage Supported by In Vitro Data

To accurately measure the activity of product candidates, we developed our PRA, a novel screening and characterization approach that incorporates two critical human serum proteins that can affect drug activity. Using this approach, we believe we can accurately predict the clinical activity of current TKI therapies, including imatinib, sunitinib, regorafenib and ripretinib. In so doing, we believe that we can better understand the therapeutic strengths and weaknesses of each compound, thereby allowing us to design THE-630 with an improved product profile.

​

To evaluate specific TKI activity, we engineered a panel of cell lines, derived from the commonly used murine Ba/F3 cell line, each of which is dependent on the activity of a different KIT variant for survival. These variants

11

Table of Contents

include combinations of different activating mutations and ten different resistance mutations known to arise after first and later lines of current TKI therapies in patients with GIST, as shown in Figure 3 below.

Del (deletion); Ins (insertion); JM (juxtamembrane domain); ECD (extracellular domain); ATP pocket (ATP binding pocket); A-loop (activation loop)

Figure 3. List of clinically relevant activating and resistant KIT mutations in GIST incorporated into our engineered Ba/F3 cell lines.

To assess the cellular potency of TKIs against each KIT variant, we measure IC50 values, which is the TKI concentration that inhibits cell survival by 50%. To better mimic the functional effects of protein binding on drug activity in humans, we performed the cell survival assays in cell culture medium supplemented with physiologic concentrations of two critical human serum proteins. We then compared these IC50 values to TKI concentrations achieved in patients treated at the clinically utilized dose. TKI concentrations in patients are represented by the average concentration, or Cav, which is calculated as the Area Under the Curve, or AUC, over a 24-hour period and divided by 24. In the context of our PRA, we believe Cav to be a more reliable clinical predictor of therapeutic benefit than the maximum or minimum concentrations observed in patients. Using this measure, we calculated the Cav for imatinib, sunitinib, regorafenib and ripretinib in patients at the approved clinical doses as set forth in Figure 4 below.

​

Figure 4. The table shows Cav values for approved TKI therapies for GIST, or benchmark TKIs, as calculated from the clinical literature. Ripretinib is known to have an active metabolite, and this was included in the analysis.

We used our PRA to predict the clinical activity of individual approved TKI therapies for GIST against specific KIT variants by comparing TKI potency, as assessed in Ba/F3 cells, to the Cav values in patients. We predicted that KIT variants inhibited by a TKI at a concentration substantially below the patient Cav would be highly sensitive to that TKI but that KIT variants inhibited at a concentration substantially above the Cav would be highly resistant. We further predicted that KIT variants inhibited with a TKI IC50 at a concentration that is within approximately two-fold of the Cav would initially be associated with a stable disease outcome but ultimately would confer tumor resistance and progression.

​

12

Table of Contents

To illustrate how we use this methodology, we compared Cav levels of sunitinib in GIST patients, and sunitinib potency against several KIT resistance mutations as determined in our cellular assay. As shown in Figure 5 below, our in vitro PRA predicted that sunitinib would have activity against ATP-binding pocket mutations but not against activation loop mutations, consistent with the clinical data.

Figure 5. Our in vitro PRA correctly recapitulated the clinical patterns of resistance of sunitinib. The prediction of resistance or sensitivity to sunitinib is shown relative to the Cav. The y-axis shows the IC50 values range using a log10 scale. PR/CR means partial/complete response; PD means progressive disease.

Next, we expanded our analysis to include all four approved KIT TKIs against a broad panel of KIT variants. Figure 6 below shows the IC50 values for imatinib, sunitinib, regorafenib and ripretinib against all 17 KIT variants, as well as the Cav values for these TKIs in patients. The resulting predictions of TKI activity against each class of activating and resistance mutations, using the approach described above, are shown in Figure 7 below.

​

As was the case for sunitinib, the results of our PRA accurately recapitulated the known clinical patterns of resistance of imatinib and regorafenib, including overall insensitivity against ATP-binding pocket mutations and activation loop mutations. While insufficient clinical resistance data have been reported for ripretinib to date, our PRA predicts only modest clinical activity against activating mutations in exon 9 and against resistance mutations in the ATP-binding pocket.  

​

We then evaluated the same panel of KIT mutations in our PRA against our lead TKI product candidate, THE-630, which demonstrated activity against all major classes of activating and resistance mutations.

​

THE-630 showed a wide breadth of inhibitory activities, demonstrating potent activity against the most common activating mutation of exon 11 deletions as well as ten different known resistance mutations. THE-630 also demonstrated potent activity against an alternate exon 11 activating mutation at V560D plus two known resistance mutations. THE-630 also showed potent activity against an exon 9 activating mutation plus two resistance mutations.

​

13

Table of Contents

Based on the activity profile, we believe that if a Cav of 100 nM is achieved in patients, THE-630 will be able to potently inhibit all major classes of activating and resistance mutations. While two mutational combinations of exon 11 deletion plus the exon 17 D816Y mutation, and of exon 9 insertion plus the exon 17 D816H mutation, were not as potently inhibited by THE-630, we note that these variants are very rarely seen in patients, despite being inhibited even less potently by imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib.

Figure 6. Activity of THE-630 and benchmark TKIs in the PRA of cytotoxicity against KIT activation and resistance mutations showing a broad activity profile. The y-axis shows the IC50 value range using a log₁₀ scale.

14

Table of Contents

Figure 7. Clinical activity profile predicted by our PRA for benchmark TKIs and THE-630 against all major classes of KIT activating and resistance mutations. PR/CR means partial/complete response; SD means stable disease; PD means progressive disease.

Tumor Regression in In Vivo Mouse Models Harboring KIT Activating and Resistance Mutations

We expanded upon the results generated using our PRA by examining the in vivo activity of THE-630 in seven tumor models expressing KIT variants containing both major classes of activating mutations and both major classes of resistance mutations. To do this, we implanted GIST-T1 cells, which express KIT with an activating mutation in exon 11, or Ba/F3 cells engineered with six different KIT variants, subcutaneously into the right flank of female immunocompromised mice, and orally administered THE-630 and other TKIs to groups of mice. Based on a pilot study in mice, which showed that once daily dosing, or QD, of THE-630 at 30 mg/kg exceeded the maximum tolerated dose, all subsequent preclinical efficacy studies used a top dose of either 20 mg/kg or 25 mg/kg of THE-630 QD. At these dose levels, there were no signs of overt toxicity associated with THE-630 treatment in the mice.

​

When sunitinib or ripretinib were included as comparators, mice were dosed orally using standard regimens reported in the literature. For sunitinib, this was 20 mg/kg QD and for ripretinib it was 50 mg/kg twice a day, or BID. Our pharmacokinetic analysis on the treated mice showed the drug exposure levels exceeded that achieved in patients by three-fold for sunitinib and two-fold for ripretinib.

​

Data from all seven models are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10 below. Also shown is the degree of anti-tumor activity for each TKI, which was calculated as the percent tumor growth inhibition, or TGI, relative to tumors in control mice, unless tumors regressed relative to the first day of treatment, in which case the percent tumor regression, or TR, was calculated. In each study, the control group of mice was dosed orally with the vehicle that each TKI was dissolved in, and on the same schedule.

​

THE-630 demonstrated anti-tumor activity in all seven models. As shown in Figure 8 below, THE-630 had strong anti-tumor activity in models containing an exon 11 activating mutation (85% TR) or an exon 9 activating mutation (58% TR). In contrast, ripretinib demonstrated weak anti-tumor activity in the exon 9 model (17% TGI). As shown in Figure 9 below, THE-630 had strong activity in a model containing a KIT exon 11 activating mutation plus the most common resistance mutation observed in the ATP-binding pocket, V654A (86% TGI), and moderate activity in a model containing the T670I mutant (39% TGI). In contrast, ripretinib had modest or weak activity in both models (26% TGI and 8% TGI). Finally, as shown in Figure 10

15

Table of Contents

below, THE-630 had strong activity in three models containing a KIT exon 11 activating mutation and a resistance mutation in the activation loop, with 83% TR, 59% TR, and 90% TGI seen in models containing N822K, D820A, and A829P, respectively. In contrast, sunitinib had weak or no activity against N822K (25% TGI) and A829P (0% TGI).

​

Therefore, consistent with the results of our in vitro PRA, sunitinib and ripretinib showed in vivo activity only against a subset of activating and resistance mutations. In contrast, THE-630 demonstrated in vivo activity against all major classes of activating and resistance mutations observed in KIT-mutant GIST, consistent with the profile of a pan-variant inhibitor.

Figure 8. In vivo activity of THE-630 and benchmark TKIs in tumor models with both classes of KIT activating mutations.

Figure 9. In vivo activity of THE-630 and benchmark TKIs in tumor models containing resistance mutations in the KIT ATP-binding pocket.

16

Table of Contents

Figure 10. In vivo activity of THE-630 and benchmark TKIs in tumor models containing resistance mutations in the KIT activation loop.

To evaluate the kinase selectivity of THE-630, we conducted a single point screen against 330 kinases at 100 nM, using a commercially available screening panel. For the purpose of comparison, we included ripretinib. Against this panel, THE-630 inhibited the activity of 50 out of 330 kinases by more than 50%. Similarly, ripretinib inhibited the activity of 43 out of 330 kinases by more than 50%.

​

Next, we tested THE-630 in a series of standard in vitro pharmacology screens with targets including receptors, transporters and enzymes, with no liabilities identified. In addition, THE-630 was screened for potential drug-drug interactions and cardiac toxicity with standard in vitro safety pharmacology assays and no liabilities were identified.

​

Preclinical Pharmacokinetic and Tolerability Profile of THE-630 

​

Pharmacokinetic, or PK, studies of THE-630 were performed in rats and non-human primates, or NHPs, to evaluate bioavailability and compound half-life in vivo. Single doses were given at 3 mg/kg intravenously and 8 to 10 mg/kg orally. THE-630 demonstrated favorable oral PK in both species, with NHPs showing higher bioavailability (approximately 60%, compared to approximately 36% in rats) and longer half-life (t_1/2) (13.1 hours, compared to 5.8 hours in rats), as shown in Figure 11 below.

17

Table of Contents

Figure 11. Rats or NHPs were dosed intravenously, or IV, and orally, or PO, with THE-630 in order to evaluate bioavailability and half-life. The concentration of THE-630 in plasma was measured and plotted against time elapsed after administration of THE-630.

We have also completed a 28-day good laboratory practice, or GLP, toxicology study of THE-630 in rats and a 28-day GLP toxicology study of THE-630 in NHPs. The no observed adverse effect level, or NOAEL, in our NHP toxicology study was used to derive our proposed first-in-human dose. The exposure levels achieved in NHPs at the NOAEL met or exceeded the in vitro IC50 values, measured in the presence of human serum proteins, for all KIT mutants evaluated. No adverse effects were seen in standard GLP safety in vivo pharmacology studies. Taken together, we believe these preclinical studies support the advancement of THE-630 into clinical trials in patients with GIST.

​

Clinical Development Plan for THE-630 in GIST

​

We designed our initial first-in-human phase 1/2 clinical trial with the goal of evaluating monotherapy THE-630 in patients with advanced GIST across the spectrum of previously-treated populations. The clinical trial commenced with the dosing of the first patient in the phase 1 portion in January 2022, and will consist of two phases:

​

​

​

In our clinical trials of THE-630, we plan to monitor mutational status of patients before and during treatment, with the aim of validating the inhibition of individual mutant forms of KIT and correlating mutation status with observed clinical activity.

18

Table of Contents

Figure 12. Outline of the design of our ongoing first-in-human clinical trial of THE-630. Our dose escalation and expansion cohorts are designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of THE-630 in advanced GIST patients in second- through fifth- or later-lines of therapy.

Assuming positive clinical data and subject to discussions with the FDA, our registration strategy will evaluate THE-630 in two different GIST populations. Our initial registration strategy for THE-630 will focus on fifth-line GIST, where there is currently no available therapy and therefore a significant unmet medical need. The data from the proposed phase 1/2 clinical trial and feedback from regulatory authorities will inform the design of a potential initial registration trial in fifth-line GIST. We also plan to prioritize the evaluation of THE-630 in second-line GIST, where we believe our pan-KIT inhibitor, with activity against all major classes of activating and resistance mutations, has the potential to deliver meaningful clinical benefit over the current standard of care.

Figure 13. Overview of the registration strategy for THE-630. Based on data from the ongoing Phase 1/2 trial in patients with advanced GIST and regulatory feedback we intend to commence a registration trials in fifth-line GIST and in second-line GIST.

19

Table of Contents

Our Fourth-Generation EGFR Inhibitor Development Program

Summary Overview

Our second program is focused on next-generation inhibitors of EGFR that are active against C797S, the most common EGFR mutation that causes resistance to first- or later-line osimertinib treatment in patients with NSCLC. NSCLC is the most common form of lung cancer with up to 50% of NSCLC tumors driven by activating mutations in EGFR, depending on geographic region. Treatment of EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC patients with first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and dacomitinib, substantively improved outcomes for patients compared to chemotherapy. However, resistance eventually develops in most patients, leading to disease progression, with about half of patients’ tumors developing the T790M EGFR mutation. Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI, was initially developed to treat T790M positive disease in patients progressing on a first- or second-generation TKI. Subsequently, it was approved in the first-line setting where it improved PFS and overall survival compared to earlier-generation inhibitors. However, most patients receiving treatment eventually progress. A subset of patients on osimertinib, either in first- or later-line therapy, will progress with EGFR-mediated resistance, primarily with the C797S mutation. A significant unmet medical need remains for patients with this subset of EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

​

Our program goal is to identify a novel TKI with all three of the following attributes:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

We intend to nominate a development candidate from our EGFR inhibitor program in the third quarter of 2022, and thereafter initiate IND-enabling studies.

​

The Market Opportunity in NSCLC for EGFR Inhibitors

Lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and its incidence continues to grow. In 2020, an estimated 2.2 million new cases of lung cancer were diagnosed globally, accounting for approximately 11.4% of the global cancer burden. An estimated 1.8 million lung cancer deaths occurred in 2020. Among all cancers, lung cancer is currently the most common cause of cancer deaths in most countries, with North America and Europe having the highest rates. NSCLC is the most common form of lung cancer, accounting for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Up to 50% of NSCLC tumors are driven by activating mutations in EGFR, depending on geographic region. Approximately 90% of these mutations are in exon 19 or 21 of the gene that encodes EGFR. In patients whose tumors progress on osimertinib, C797S and other resistance mutations in EGFR have been observed at a frequency of up to approximately 12% after first-line osimertinib and 20% after second-line osimertinib.

20

Table of Contents

Current Treatment Paradigm in EGFR-mutant NSCLC and Limitations

EGFR biology and means of inhibiting EGFR. EGFR, a member of the RTK family, plays a critical role in maintaining normal cell physiology in many organs and tissues. Since EGFR signaling is implicated in the genesis and progression of many cancers, it has led to the development of several classes of EGFR inhibitors. For example, the discovery of ligand-independent EGFR signaling in cancers led to the development and clinical characterization of EGFR TKIs, particularly in NSCLC. In particular, activating mutations within the EGFR kinase domain were found in approximately 10% to 15% of caucasian NSCLC patients and up to 50% of East-Asian NSCLC patients, and it was in these patients where strong response to first-generation EGFR TKIs, such as gefitinib and erlotinib, was observed.

​

The mutations targeted by marketed EGFR inhibitors and the resulting levels of efficacy. The major EGFR genetic alterations observed in NSCLC, the exon 19 deletions and the exon 21 L858R substitution, are mutations that cause ligand-independent activation of EGFR. The activation causes downstream signaling that promotes cancer cell survival and proliferation. First- and second-generation EGFR TKIs bind to the EGFR kinase domain’s ATP-binding pocket to inhibit activity and signal transduction. These first- and second-generation TKIs, which include gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib and dacomitinib, induce a high response rate of approximately 70% to 75% and provide a median PFS of approximately 10 months to 14 months. These clinical results are superior to the previous standard of care front-line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC.

​

Resistance and unmet need in EGFR-driven lung cancer. Despite these advances, resistance to first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs has been observed, resulting in patient relapse, disease progression and death. The most common resistance mutation that arises in response to first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs is the T790M mutation, a gatekeeper mutation in exon 20 that blocks TKI access to the ATP-binding pocket. Osimertinib was developed initially to counter this resistance mutation. Osimertinib was first approved in the United States and globally for the treatment of patients with metastatic EGFR T790M mutation-positive NSCLC whose disease has progressed on or after EGFR TKI therapy. In this setting, osimertinib yielded a high response rate (approximately 65%) and improved PFS compared to chemotherapy. Subsequently, osimertinib was approved in the first-line metastatic setting for EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC after showing improved efficacy compared to earlier-generation TKIs, with a median PFS of 19 months and median overall survival, or OS, of over three years. More recently, osimertinib was approved as an adjuvant treatment after tumor resection for patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC. Lazertinib and almonertinib are two additional third-generation TKIs approved for EGFR-mutant NSCLC, both with similar mechanisms of action to osimertinib. Lazertinib monotherapy is approved in South Korea for patients with EGFR T790M mutation positive disease who have previously been treated with an EGFR TKI, and the drug is also being evaluated in combination with a MET/EGFR bispecific antibody, amivantamab, in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Almonertinib is approved in China for patients with EGFR T790M mutation positive disease who have previously been treated with an EGFR TKI.

​

Resistance to osimertinib and other third-generation TKIs is an emerging limitation to the success of current EGFR TKI therapy, as shown in Figure 13 below. Several of the resistance mechanisms that have been seen to arise in response to osimertinib are EGFR-independent, involving amplification or oncogenic changes in other signaling pathways. However, in both treatment-naïve patients and patients with EGFR T790M-positive disease who progress on osimertinib, EGFR resistance mutations have also been observed. The C797S mutation results in the conversion of the targeted cysteine, or C, at position 797 of EGFR, into serine, or S. In addition, several other EGFR mutations are found in osimertinib-resistant patients. C797S and other resistance mutations in EGFR have been observed at a frequency of up to approximately 12% after first-line osimertinib and approximately 20% after second-line osimertinib. Therefore, we believe that there is a critical need for a fourth-generation EGFR TKI that can block the array of resistance mutations in EGFR that arise across the first- through third-generation EGFR TKI therapeutic landscape. A summary of the major classes of activating and resistance mutations that must be inhibited by a fourth-generation EGFR TKI is shown in Figure 14 below.

21

Table of Contents

Figure 14. Schematic of activating EGFR mutations and resistance mutations that arise following treatment with first-, second- and third-generation EGFR inhibitors. Activating deletions in exon 19 are referred to as Del19 mutations.

Figure 15. Nomenclature used to describe the major classes of EGFR activating and resistance mutations.

An important element in the development of EGFR inhibitors is ensuring selectivity for mutant EGFR compared to the wild-type, or non-mutated, EGFR that is normally expressed in human tissues. Inhibition of wild-type EGFR leads to gastrointestinal and skin toxicities that can be serious and dose-limiting. First- and second-generation EGFR inhibitors are limited by this toxicity, although third-generation EGFR inhibitors, such as osimertinib, have improved selectivity for mutant, activated EGFR and therefore improved tolerability.

​

Our Solution—Fourth-Generation EGFR Inhibitor Development Program

​

Using our structure-guided approach, we have developed intricate computer models of the EGFR binding site that have provided a map of potential residues to target for increased molecular interaction. We have leveraged these detailed maps in the design of fourth-generation EGFR compounds that inhibit activating forms of EGFR and mutant forms with C797S and T790M resistance mutations, with selectivity over wild-type EGFR. Our iterative, structure-guided approach has yielded several distinct molecular series and more than 250 novel compounds. Many compounds demonstrate robust kinase inhibitory activity in biochemical screens, and are active in cellular assays against single-, double- and triple-mutant EGFR variants. Using the triple-mutant Del19/T790M/C797S, or DTC mutant, as an in vivo screen, we have identified compounds that are orally bioavailable and show strong tumor growth inhibition in vivo. For example, one of our EGFR inhibitor compounds, which we refer to as Compound B, was profiled against a series of mutant EGFR variants in vivo, including the single-mutant variant L858R, or L mutant, the double-mutant variant L858R/T790M, or LT mutant, and the triple-mutant variant L858R/T790M/C797S, or LTC mutant, and was shown to have strong anti-tumor activity against all three. In addition, we designed our compounds to avoid P-glycoprotein, an important efflux protein located on endothelial cells of the blood brain barrier suggesting that

22

Table of Contents

they may have the potential to be active against NSCLC patients whose disease has metastasized into the brain.

​

Broad EGFR Mutation Coverage and Wild-type Selectivity Supported by In Vitro Data

​

To determine the ability of our compounds to broadly inhibit single-, double- and triple-mutant EGFR variants, we first evaluated them in a kinase inhibition assay. We assayed our compounds against EGFR kinases engineered to harbor the single-mutant L variant, the double-mutant LT variant and the triple-mutant LTC variant. Activity in these assays is reported as IC50 values, which is the TKI concentration that inhibits kinase activity by 50%. Erlotinib and osimertinib, two approved EGFR inhibitors known to be weakly active against the triple-mutant LTC variant, were included as controls. Representative compounds from our EGFR inhibitor program and their IC50 values have been tabulated and are shown below in Figure 16. All three Compounds (Compounds A, B and C) demonstrated low nanomolar IC50 values against single-, double- and triple-mutant EGFR variants.

​

Figure 16. Summary of kinase inhibitory data (IC50 values) against single- (L), double- (LT) and triple- (LTC) mutant EGFR variants.

To evaluate TKI activity in a cellular context, we engineered a panel of Ba/F3 cell lines so their survival is dependent on different mutant EGFR variants. We then used these cell lines to assess cellular potency as represented by the IC50 value. We also measured the potency of each TKI against wild-type EGFR, also represented by the IC50 value, by determining the concentration required to inhibit phosphorylation of wild-type EGFR by 50% in A431 cells. We had previously observed that clinical efficacy of first-, second-, and third-generation TKIs against specific mutant EGFR variants is associated with a substantially lower IC50 value against the mutant variant than against wild-type EGFR as measured using these assays.

​

Figure 17 below shows the potency of erlotinib and osimertinib against wild-type EGFR, as well as against five EGFR variants representing all major classes of activating and resistance mutations. These include: (1) a Del19 activating mutation alone, or D mutant; (2) two double-mutant variants, Del19/T790M, or DT mutant, and Del19/C797S, or DC mutant; and (3) two triple-mutant variants, Del19/T790M/C797S, or DTC mutant, and the LTC mutant. As expected, based on its clinical profile, erlotinib had potent activity against the D and DC mutant variants, but not against any of the three variants that contain a T790M mutation. In contrast, osimertinib had potent activity against D and DT mutant variants, but not against any of the three variants that contained a C797S mutation.

​

In contrast to erlotinib and osimertinib, as shown in Figure 16 below, all three Compounds A, B and C demonstrated potent activity against all five mutant variants. That is, Compounds A, B and C potently inhibited EGFR with a common activating mutation and maintain potency in the presence of a T790M mutation, or a C797S mutation, or both T790M and C797S mutations in the same protein. In addition, in all cases, all five mutant EGFR variants are inhibited with potency at least ten-fold greater than that against wild-type EGFR, suggesting the potential for on target EGFR-driven efficacy without the toxicities associated with wild-type inhibition.

23

Table of Contents

Figure 17. Summary of cellular IC50 values including control (erlotinib and osimertinib) and Compounds (A, B and C) against wild-type (WT) EGFR and a panel of single- (D), double- (DT, DC) and triple- (DTC, LTC) mutant EGFR variants.

Tumor Regression in In Vivo Mouse Models Harboring EGFR Activating and Resistance Mutations

​

We evaluated the activity of our compounds in mouse tumor models to determine whether they have the necessary pharmacologic activity in vivo. To do this, we subcutaneously implanted Ba/F3 cells engineered with EGFR-mutant variants into immunocompromised mice, then administered compounds orally to groups of mice. When osimertinib was included as a comparator, mice were dosed orally using a standard regimen reported in the literature, 25 mg/kg QD. The degree of anti-tumor activity for each TKI was calculated as the percent tumor growth inhibition, or TGI, relative to tumors in control mice, unless tumors regressed relative to the first day of treatment, in which case the percent tumor regression, or TR, was calculated. We did not observe any signs of overt toxicity associated with these treatments.

​

We used an EGFR DTC triple-mutant model to screen compounds based on the results of an initial study that confirmed that this model was resistant to osimertinib treatment, with only 15% TGI observed. Using this model, we have identified multiple compounds that are orally bioavailable and show strong anti-tumor activity. Figure 18 below shows the strong anti-tumor activity of three of these Compounds, with Compounds A, B and C all inducing between 89% and 97% TGI.

​

Figure 18. In vivo activity of Compounds A, B and C against EGFR DTC triple mutant.

24

Table of Contents

We next evaluated Compound B in three additional models. As shown in Figure 19 below, Compound B had strong anti-tumor activity in all three models. In a second triple-mutant model expressing an EGFR triple-mutant LTC variant, Compound B induced 61% TR, while osimertinib had only modest anti-tumor activity. In models expressing an EGFR single-mutant L variant or an EGFR double-mutant LT variant, both Compound B and osimertinib demonstrated strong anti-tumor activity.

​

Compound B, in agreement with our panel of in vitro data, suggests that it is possible to design compounds that are orally bioavailable, selective over wild-type EGFR, and which have activity against single-, double- and triple-mutant EGFR variants.

Figure 19. In vivo activity, including osimertinib as a control, of Compound B against single- (L), double- (LT) and triple- (LTC) mutant EGFR variants.

Evaluation of CNS Activity

Metastasis to the CNS is an important issue in the treatment of NSCLC and other cancers. Drugs that fail to cross the BBB expose patients to the risk of CNS metastatic disease. To assess the potential of our compounds to cross the BBB, we measured the effects on P-glycoprotein, an important efflux protein located on endothelial cells of the blood brain barrier. Several compounds within our series were shown not to be P-glycoprotein substrates, suggesting that they may have the potential to be active in NSCLC patients whose disease has relapsed into the brain. We are assessing the CNS activity of our compounds in animal models.

​

Clinical Development Plan

​

We intend to nominate a development candidate from our EGFR inhibitor program in the third quarter of 2022, and thereafter initiate IND-enabling studies. Initial clinical development and registration approach will focus on treatment of EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients who have developed resistance to osimertinib. We expect to file an IND for this program in 2023.

​

Our Predictive Resistance Assay is Driving Development of Additional Novel Therapeutics

​

Based on the use of our PRA for multiple TKI families, including our current programs, we believe the novel PRA approach we used to evaluate KIT and EGFR TKI therapies is suitable for the prosecution of diverse kinase targets, as well as targets from other oncogenic protein families. As we apply our PRA more widely, we are guided by the clear principles of our research and discovery approach. We will focus on clinically validated targets with clearly defined patient populations and significant unmet medical needs. We will leverage our core competencies in structure-guided design for novel small molecule development and use our PRA to identify candidates that demonstrate on-target pan-mutant activity against known activation and resistance mutations. We believe our insights into small molecule drug design allow us to design and develop

25

Table of Contents

small molecule inhibitors that address on-target mechanisms of resistance to prior generation inhibitors while maintaining selectivity and offering the potential for superior tolerability.

​

We intend to select one or more targets as our next program(s) by the end of 2022.

​

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, particularly the field of oncology, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. We believe that our pipeline, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with differentiated competitive advantages. However, we have competitors both in the United States and internationally, which include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, emerging and start-up companies, universities and other research institutions. For example, several biopharmaceutical companies, including Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc., Blueprint Medicines Corporation, or Blueprint, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Deciphera, Kinnate Biopharma Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Nuvalent, Inc., Relay Therapeutics, Inc., Revolution Medicines, Inc., Scorpion Therapeutics, Turning Point Therapeutics, Inc. and Tyra Biosciences, Inc., are also developing precision oncology medicines.

​

The key competitive factors that will affect the success of product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. We also compete with these organizations to recruit and retain qualified scientific and management personnel. We will also face competition in establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

​

Our competitors have developed, are developing, or may develop products, product candidates and processes competitive with ours. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaborators, have significantly greater financial resources, established presences in markets, expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, gaining reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. Our competitors may succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or in discovering, developing and commercializing product candidates in our field before we do.

​

There are several approved therapies for the treatment of conditions for which we are attempting or may attempt to develop product candidates. In addition, we believe that a significant number of product candidates are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future.

​

​

26

Table of Contents

​

We also face competition broadly across the oncology market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drugs and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, product candidates may not be competitive with them. Additionally, product candidates may need to compete with drugs that physicians use off-label to treat the indications for which we seek approval. Moreover, many companies are developing new oncology therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as product candidates progress through clinical development.

​

ARIAD License Agreement

In June 2018, we entered into a license agreement, or the ARIAD License Agreement, with ARIAD, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Takeda, for an exclusive, transferable (subject to certain restrictions), sublicensable (subject to certain conditions), worldwide license, under certain of ARIAD’s patent rights, know-how and compounds and a certain ARIAD chemical library, to develop, use, manufacture, market and commercialize certain compounds, and products that contain such compounds, that are therapeutically useful for the treatment of diseases and disorders in humans, including with respect to C-KIT (as that term is defined in the ARIAD License Agreement), a type of receptor tyrosine kinase and tumor marker (also known as CD117 and stem cell factor receptor). THE-630 is derived from intellectual property licensed to us under the ARIAD License Agreement and is therefore subject to the ARIAD License Agreement.

​

Pursuant to the terms of the ARIAD License Agreement and related stock purchase agreements, we issued an aggregate of 1,615,427 shares of our Series A Preferred Stock to ARIAD (which converted to shares of our common stock in connection with our initial public offering in October 2021). We are obligated to make tiered royalty payments to ARIAD that are low- to mid-single digits of our future net sales and those of our sublicensees of each product comprising a licensed ARIAD compound in each country, beginning on the first commercial sale of such product in such country and ending on the later of (1) ten years following such first commercial sale and (2) the expiry of all patents that cover the product in such country, or the royalty term. Our royalty payment obligations are subject to reductions in certain circumstances.

​

During the term of the ARIAD License Agreement, we agreed not to use any intellectual property licensed to us, or any biological materials provided to us, thereunder to develop, use, manufacture, market or commercialize the same with respect to EGFR or any compounds or products that are potentially therapeutically useful for the treatment of diseases and disorders in humans with respect to EGFR (also known as ErbB1, ERbB and HER1). We did not use any intellectual property licensed to us, or any biological materials provided to us, under the ARIAD License Agreement to develop our EGFR inhibitor program.

​

ARIAD may terminate the ARIAD License Agreement (1) for our uncured material breach of such agreement, (2) if we, or any of our affiliates or sublicensees, commence, and do not stop after receiving notice from ARIAD, any interference or opposition proceeding in relation to, challenges to the validity or enforceability of, or opposition to any extension of or the grant of a supplementary protection certificate with respect to, any ARIAD patent or patent application licensed under the ARIAD License Agreement, or (3) in the event of our bankruptcy. 

​

We have the first right to control the prosecution of, and to bring enforcement actions for infringement by third parties with respect to, the patents licensed to us under the ARIAD License Agreement, with input from ARIAD. If we determine not to prosecute or enforce an ARIAD-licensed patent then ARIAD has the right to do so under certain conditions.

​

27

Table of Contents

The ARIAD License Agreement terminates, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, on expiration of the royalty term for such product for the applicable country. Thereafter, the licenses from ARIAD to us with respect to such product for such country will convert to a fully paid, royalty-free, irrevocable and perpetual license.

​

Intellectual Property

​

We seek to protect the intellectual property and proprietary technology that we consider important to our business, including by pursuing patent applications that cover our product candidate and any additional product candidates we may develop, and methods of using the same, as well as any other relevant inventions and improvements that we believe to be commercially important to the development of our business. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States directed to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and product candidates (including compositions, methods of use, dosing and formulations) that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We may also pursue patent protection with respect to manufacturing and drug development processes and technologies. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. We also plan to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions when available. Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain, maintain, enforce and protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights for the technology, inventions and improvements we consider important to our business, and to defend any patents we may own or in-license in the future, prevent others from infringing any patents we may own or in-license in the future, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties.

​

As of December 31, 2021, our patent portfolio consisted of two issued patents and 34 pending patent applications that we own or license related to our KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs. In total, as of that date, we owned or licensed two issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, four pending U.S. provisional patent applications, one pending PCT patent application and 28 pending foreign patent applications.

​

More specifically, with respect to our KIT inhibitor program, we own two pending U.S. provisional patent applications and we license two issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications and 28 pending foreign patent applications, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, Israel, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and South Korea. Any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications are expected to have nominal expiration dates ranging from 2037 to 2042, absent any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions for regulatory delay. The KIT portfolio includes filings covering compositions of matter and methods of using our lead product candidate, THE-630, including one licensed patent with issued claims directed to composition of matter that encompass THE-630.

​

With respect to our EGFR inhibitor program, we own two pending U.S. provisional patent applications and one pending PCT patent application. Any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications are expected to have nominal expiration dates ranging from 2041 to 2042, absent any patent term adjustments or patent term extensions for regulatory delay.

​

Issued patents can provide protection for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. 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. In addition, in certain instances, the term of an issued U.S. patent that covers or claims an FDA approved product can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, which is called patent term extension. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The term of patents outside of the

28

Table of Contents

United States varies in accordance with the laws of the foreign jurisdiction, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

​

The patent position of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications and those of our licensors and collaborators may not result in patents being issued which protect product candidates or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive product candidates. Moreover, obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is inherently uncertain, due in part to ongoing changes in the patent laws. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities.

​

Commercial Strategy

We intend to retain significant development and commercial rights to product candidates and, if marketing approval is obtained, to commercialize product candidates on our own, or potentially with a partner, in the United States and other regions. We currently have no sales, marketing or commercial product distribution capabilities. However, we intend to build a focused sales and marketing organization and the necessary infrastructure and capabilities over time in the United States, and potentially other regions, following further advancement of product candidates. We believe that such an organization will be able to address the community of oncologists who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which product candidates and programs are being developed. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine. Clinical data, the size of the addressable patient population, the size of the commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence or alter our commercialization plans.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our small molecule product candidate, as well as any other product candidates we may develop through our programs, for preclinical and clinical testing. We also expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidate and any other product candidates we may develop through our programs for commercial supply, if any product candidates obtain marketing approval. We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to package, label, store and distribute our product candidate and any other product candidates we may develop through our programs and, if marketing approval is obtained, our commercial products.

​

However, as we progress towards commercialization of product candidates, we anticipate expanding the supply chain to include multiple contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs. We believe this strategy allows us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure by eliminating the need for us to invest in our own manufacturing facilities and equipment, while also enabling us to focus our expertise and resources on the development of product candidates.

​

Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose procedural and documentation requirements. These regulations govern record keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance. Our CMOs are required to comply with these regulations and are assessed through

29

Table of Contents

regular monitoring and formal audits. Our third-party manufacturers are required to manufacture any product candidates we develop under current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, requirements and other applicable laws and regulations.

​

We generally expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of companion diagnostics, which are assays or tests that identify an appropriate patient population, if needed for any product candidates that receive marketing approval.

Government Regulation

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, and other regulatory authorities in and outside the United States, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, manufacture, import, export, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, advertising, and promotion of drugs and biologics. We, along with third parties we work with will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the jurisdictions in which we wish to conduct studies or seek marketing approval of drug product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and biologics and ensuring subsequent compliance with applicable legal requirements presents a variety of risks and requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

​

In the United States where we are initially focusing our drug development and commercialization, we believe our product candidates, as small molecule drugs, would be regulated as new drugs rather than biologics. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time with respect to product development, clinical testing, approval or any other regulatory requirements relating to product manufacture, handling, safety, advertising, promotion, packaging, labeling, export, import, distribution, or sale, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions or other legal consequences. These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for proposed or ongoing studies, suspension or revocation of approvals, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

​

Preclinical Studies and Clinical Trials for Drugs

Before testing any drug in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulation and requirements, including GLP requirements under 21 C.F.R. Part 58 and animal testing requirements under the Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.). The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

​

An IND is a submission to the FDA under which a sponsor proposes to administer an investigational product to humans. An IND must become effective before the proposed clinical trials may begin. The IND becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns about the conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a full or partial clinical hold. The FDA must notify the sponsor of the grounds for the hold, and any identified deficiencies must be resolved before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing clinical trials to commence or not allowing clinical trials to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND.

​

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to study subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators, who generally are physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in a clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject

30

Table of Contents

selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

​

Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB or IEC for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable compared to the anticipated benefits. The IRB or IEC also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. The FDA, the IRB or IEC, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries such as www.ClinicalTrials.gov, a clinical trials database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.

​

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States is subject to the requirements of the applicable jurisdiction and may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the FDA may nevertheless accept the results of the study in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

​

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap.

​

​

​

​

31

Table of Contents

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as phase 4 clinical trials or post-marketing studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional evidence from the treatment of study subjects in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting, or in some cases to confirm clinical benefit. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of NDA approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human volunteers, and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Expanded Access

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational drug products outside of controlled clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the sponsor or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis.

​

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides an additional mechanism for patients with a life-threatening condition who have exhausted approved treatments and are unable to participate in clinical trials to access certain investigational products that have completed a phase 1 clinical trial, are the subject of an active IND, and are undergoing investigation in a clinical trial that is intended to form the primary basis of a claim of effectiveness in support of FDA approval. There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its investigational products available to eligible patients under the Right to Try Act.

​

U.S. Marketing Approval for Drugs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA package requesting approval to market the drug product for one or more indications. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a “refuse-to-file” decision by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective for the indications sought and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed, including cGMP requirements, designed to assure and preserve the product’s continued identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

32

Table of Contents

​

Further, under PDUFA, each NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. For fiscal year 2022, the application fee for each application containing clinical data is $3,117,218. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for each approved prescription drug, which has been set at $369,413 for fiscal year 2022. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on applications for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

​

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which reviews, evaluates and provides advice and recommendations to FDA as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

​

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more select clinical trial sites involved in conducting pivotal studies to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a Complete Response Letter. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. In issuing the Complete Response Letter, the FDA may require additional clinical or preclinical testing or recommend other actions, such as requests for additional information or clarification, that the applicant might take in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If FDA issues an approval letter, the approval authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indication(s).

​

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies be conducted to further assess a product’s safety and efficacy, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs.

​

33

Table of Contents

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition with either a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a marketing application. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, though companies developing orphan products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the use for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity from the date of FDA approval during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the “same drug” for the same use, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product’s showing of “clinical superiority” over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product. The FDA defines “same drug” with respect to small molecule drugs as a drug that contains the same active moiety as a previously approved drug and is intended for the same use as the previously approved drug. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same therapeutic agent for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Further, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if the manufacturer chooses to provide consent to approval of other applications. In February 2022, we received orphan drug designation from the FDA for THE-630 for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Expedited Development and Review Programs for Drugs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to either expedite the development or review of important new drugs and biologics to get them to patients more quickly than standard FDA review timelines typically permit. We intend to apply for these programs for product candidates, as applicable.

A new drug is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed. Rolling review means that the FDA may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application.

In addition, a new drug may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation, in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient product development program beginning as early as phase 1 and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development.

34

Table of Contents

Any drug product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. A drug product is eligible for Priority Review, once an NDA is submitted, if the product that is the subject of the marketing application has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under Priority Review, the FDA’s goal date to take action on the marketing application is six months compared to ten months for a standard review, running from the date of FDA’s acceptance of the application for review in the case of a new molecular entity and otherwise running from the date of submission of the application to FDA.

The FDA may grant Accelerated Approval to a drug product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant Accelerated Approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

The Accelerated Approval pathway is contingent on a requirement that the sponsor conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to initiate expedited proceedings to withdraw approval of the product. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA. In addition, the FDA requires, as a condition for Accelerated Approval, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period. After the 120-day period has passed, all advertising and promotional materials must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination or publication.

Even if a drug product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval, though they may expedite the development or review process.

Pediatric Study Plan and Pediatric Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, as amended, or the PREA, certain NDAs and certain NDA supplements must contain data that can be used to assess the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. For a cancer drug directed at a molecular target, the pediatric testing requirement extends to pediatric cancers involving the molecular target even if different than the claimed adult cancer in the NDA. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the PREA does not apply to a drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, except that the PREA will apply to an original NDA for a new active ingredient that is orphan-designated if the drug is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and is directed at a molecular target that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer.

A drug can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the

35

Table of Contents

end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

U.S. Post-Approval Requirements for Drugs

Drugs approved by FDA are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to manufacturing establishment registration and product listing, recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, field alerts regarding issues with distributed drug products, and promotion and advertising compliance, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”). Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

​

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS, or FDA withdrawal of product approval.

​

United States Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our future product candidates, some of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.

Upon any approval of an NDA we receive, we may also be eligible to receive certain periods of regulatory exclusivity. For example, the FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

Companion diagnostics provide information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding therapeutic product. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the United States, the FDCA, and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are clearance of a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FDCA, or 510(k), and approval of a premarket approval application, or PMA.

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, which is typically a previously 510(k)-cleared device. A proposed device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device if the subject device (1) has the same intended use as the predicate device and (2) either (a) has the same technological

36

Table of Contents

characteristics as the predicate device or (b) has different technological characteristics but does not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness than the predicate device and the submitted information demonstrates that the subject device is as safe and effective as the predicate device. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application is completed, but can take longer.

A PMA must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the quality system regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. FDA has committed to performance goals of reviewing original PMAs that are not referred to an Advisory Committee within 180 days and reviewing PMAs referred to an Advisory Committee within 320 days (excluding days when a request for additional information is pending with the applicant), although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or the device is determined to be unsafe or ineffective following initial marketing.

On August 6, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. The FDA also issued a draft guidance in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its corresponding in vitro companion diagnostic.

Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of the FDA’s QSR, establishment registration and device listing, adverse event and device malfunction reporting, reporting of recalls and corrections, along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug makers, companion diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of products following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

37

Table of Contents

Healthcare Laws

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers, and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include federal and state anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including those described below. Comparable laws exist in other jurisdictions.

Insurance Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing healthcare services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, principal decisions about Medicare reimbursement for new products are typically made by CMS and regional contractors responsible for administering the Medicare program. CMS and these contractors decide whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private third-party payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree.

​

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is (1) a covered benefit under its health plan; (2) safe, effective and medically necessary; (3) appropriate for the specific patient; (4) cost-effective; and (5) neither experimental nor investigational. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors, and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor.

​

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, and imposing controls to manage costs. In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the product, which will require additional expenditure above and beyond the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Moreover, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls or price increase penalties, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products.

​

In addition, coverage and reimbursement for companion diagnostic tests is separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical products. Challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement similar to those applicable to pharmaceutical products will apply to companion diagnostics.

​

38

Table of Contents

Compliance with Other Federal and State Laws or Requirements; Changing Legal Requirements

If any products that we may develop are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, among other requirements to which we may be subject. The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive recordkeeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products, and state licensure.

​

European Union Drug Development

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the member state regimes. Under the Clinical Trials Directive, before a clinical trial can be initiated, it must be approved in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority (NCA), and one or more Ethics Committees (ECs). Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

The EU clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. The Clinical Trials Regulation EU No 536/2014 entered into application on January 31, 2022 and is directly applicable, thus the rules governing clinical trials are further harmonized. The Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a transition period during which the Clinical Trials Directive continues to apply to certain trials. However, all trials conducted under the Clinical Trial Directive must be transitioned to conduct under the Clinical Trials Regulation by January 31, 2025, if still ongoing at that point.

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area (EEA), which is comprised of the 27 Member States of the European Union and three European Free Trade Association States (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization (MA). There are two types of marketing authorizations, a centralized MA and a national MA.

​

39

Table of Contents

​

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. Similar to the U.S. patent term-restoration, Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) serve as an extension to a patent right in Europe for up to five years. SPCs apply to specific pharmaceutical products to offset the loss of patent protection due to the lengthy testing and clinical trials these products require prior to obtaining regulatory marketing approval. Alongside patent protection, there are a number of regulatory incentives offered (including SPC extensions, regulatory data protection and orphan market exclusivity, amongst others).

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

Government Regulation of Data Collection outside of the United States

In the event we conduct clinical trials in the European Union, we will be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection and use of personal health data in the EEA is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA to the extent they process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for data controllers of personal data, including stringent requirements relating to the consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, enhanced requirements for securing personal data, requirements to conduct privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, mandatory data breach notification and “privacy by design” requirements, and creates direct obligations on service providers acting as processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA member states, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of a company’s global turnover for the preceding financial year, or €20 million, whichever is greater. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the GDPR will require significant time, resources and expense, and we may be required to put in place additional controls and processes ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. There has been increasing enforcement of the GDPR since it took effect in 2018, but less so in biopharmaceutical development, so we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements on any future trials and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law. Further, the United Kingdom’s

40

Table of Contents

decision to leave the European Union, means that it has in force its own legislation which is aligned with the GDPR, including the Data Protection Act 2018 and provisions of the GDPR incorporated into UK domestic law, or UK GDPR. The requirements are similar except that the United Kingdom is now regarded as a “third country” for the purposes of transfers of personal data from the EEA. Transfers continue to flow freely from the UK to the EEA following an adequacy decision from the European Commission adopted on June 28, 2021 and valid for four years.

​

Data protection authority activity differs across the EU, with certain authorities applying their own agenda which shows there is uncertainty in the manner in which data protection authorities will seek to enforce compliance with GDPR. For example, it is not clear if the authorities will conduct random audits of companies doing business in the EU, or if the authorities will wait for complaints to be filed by individuals who claim their rights have been violated. Enforcement uncertainty and the costs associated with ensuring GDPR compliance are onerous and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Should we utilize third-party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control

​

Employees and Human Capital

As of February 28, 2022 we had 26 full-time employees, of which 13 have M.D., D.Phil or Ph.D. degrees. Of our full-time employees, 15 were engaged in research and development activities and 11 were engaged in business development, finance and general management and administration. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

​

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, motivating and integrating our existing and future employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through grants of stock-based compensation awards and payments of cash-based performance bonus awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating our employees to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Corporate Information

We were initially formed on December 29, 2017 as Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 245 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, and our telephone number is (857) 400-9491. Our website address is https://theseusrx.com/. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report. We have included our website address as an inactive textual reference only.

​

​

​

41

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

We have never generated revenue from product sales and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

​

We have no products approved for commercial sale. Our product candidates are in the early stage of development and we expect that it will be many years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing, obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals for and eventually commercializing a product or products that generate significant revenue.

​

Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends significantly on our ability to be effective in a range of challenging activities, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

See also “―Risks Related to the Discovery, Research and Development of Product Candidates.”

​

We may never be successful in achieving our objectives and, even if we do, may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. Our failure to become and remain profitable would significantly decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to maintain or further our research and development efforts, raise additional necessary capital, grow our business and continue our operations.

​

We will need to obtain substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise this capital when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or other operations.

​

The development of product candidates, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, capital intensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We expect our expenses to increase substantially in the foreseeable future in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of and initiate preclinical studies and clinical trials of product candidates. We will need substantial additional funds to expand our clinical, regulatory, quality and manufacturing capabilities. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to marketing, sales, manufacturing and distribution.

​

As of December 31, 2021, we had $244.7 million in cash and cash equivalents, including the net proceeds from our initial public offering completed in October 2021. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our operations and capital expenses into the second half of 2024. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect, particularly given that the design and outcome of our ongoing and anticipated preclinical studies and clinical trials are highly uncertain.

​

Our existing cash and cash equivalents will not be sufficient to fund our product candidate through regulatory approval, and we anticipate needing to raise additional capital to complete the development of and

43

Table of Contents

commercialize our product candidate and development programs. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Our failure to raise capital as and when needed or on acceptable terms would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our research or drug development programs, clinical trials or future commercialization efforts.

​

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

​

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to obtain further funding through a combination of equity financings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements or other sources of financing, which may dilute our stockholders or restrict our operating activities. We do not have any committed external source of funds, and adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights. Debt financing or preferred equity financings may result in imposition of covenants, increased fixed payment obligations or other restrictions that may affect our business. If we raise additional funds through upfront payments or milestone payments pursuant to strategic collaborations with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to

44

Table of Contents

product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. In addition, securing financing could require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management and may divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to oversee the development of product candidates.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Research and Development of Product Candidates

​

We are very early in our development efforts and are substantially dependent on our pan-KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs. If we are unable to advance any product candidates from our pan-KIT or EGFR inhibitor programs through preclinical and clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize such product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

​

Although we recently initiated a phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion clinical trial of our only product candidate, THE-630, all of our programs are still in the early stage of development. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more product candidates from our pan-KIT or EGFR inhibitor programs, which may never occur.

​

The success of our pan-KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs will depend on several factors, including the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

45

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

We do not have complete control over many of these factors. If we are not successful with respect to one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize any product candidates from our development programs, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive marketing approvals for such product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.  If we are unable to advance our product candidates to clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

​

We may not be able to submit INDs for our EGFR inhibitor and other programs to commence clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to submit an IND, the FDA may not permit us to initiate clinical trials.

​

Before we can initiate clinical trials in the United States for product candidates, we must submit the results of preclinical testing to the FDA along with other information, including information about product candidate chemistry, manufacturing and controls and our proposed clinical trial protocol as part of an IND submission. We intend to nominate a development candidate from our EGFR inhibitor program in the third quarter of 2022, and thereafter initiate IND-enabling studies. However, we may not be able to submit such IND, or any INDs we may submit for any of our other programs, on the timelines we expect, or at all.

​

We cannot be sure that submitting an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin or of the timelines to begin any such trials, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that will require us to suspend or terminate clinical trials. Any failure to submit INDs on the timelines we, our stockholders or securities analysts expect or to obtain regulatory approvals for our anticipated clinical trials may prevent us from initiating or completing our clinical trials or commercializing product candidates on a timely basis, if at all. Even if completed, any delays in commencing or completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, extend the time it takes to complete clinical development and jeopardize the commercial prospects of product candidates and our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue, if at all. Further, if we are unable to achieve our goals within the timeframes we announce, the price of our common stock could decline, and our stockholders may lose some or all of their investment.

​

In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate. For example, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to a product candidate, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge that modified product candidate to earlier versions we have evaluated. Further, if one or more clinical trials are delayed, our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our product candidate or any product candidates that we may develop could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may harm our

46

Table of Contents

business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Any termination of any clinical trial of product candidates will harm our commercial prospects and our ability to generate revenue.

​

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, discover or develop potential product candidates.

​

Our future operating results are dependent on our ability to successfully discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize product candidates from our research programs, in addition to our pan-KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources.

​

Our approach to the discovery and design of small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or TKIs, relies on our PRA, a novel screening and characterization approach that incorporates two critical human serum proteins that can affect drug activity. Our PRA has not been clinically validated. While the results of preclinical studies have suggested that certain of our TKIs may have the ability to inhibit all major classes of activating and resistance mutations, we have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety of THE-630 or any of our development programs in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. If our approach to the discovery and design of product candidates does not lead to the development of product candidates that prove to be effective and safe for the targeted indication, this would adversely impact our business strategy and our financial position and share price and could potentially cause us to cease operations.

​

Even if identified, a development candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of development. The historical failure rate for development candidates is high due to risks relating to safety, efficacy, clinical execution, changing standards of medical care and other unpredictable variables. The success of other development candidates we may develop will depend on many factors, including those described elsewhere in this section.

​

Our ongoing and anticipated preclinical studies and clinical trials may fail at any time, and because our only product candidate and our pan-KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs are in a very early stage of development, there is a high risk of failure, and we may never succeed in developing marketable products.

​

Before obtaining marketing approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for the sale of product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that such product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement and can take many years to complete, and its ultimate outcome is uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the development processes, and, because our only product candidate, THE-630, and our pan-KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs are in a very early stage of development, there is a high risk of failure and we may never succeed in developing products that receive marketing approval.

​

The commencement and completion of clinical trials, such as our phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion clinical trial for THE-630 that we initiated in the first quarter of 2022, can be delayed for a number of reasons, including delays related to:

​

​

​

​

47

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

If we are required to conduct additional preclinical studies, clinical trials or other testing of product candidates beyond those that are contemplated, if we are unable to successfully complete preclinical studies or clinical trials of product candidates or other testing in a timely manner, if the results of these studies, trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may incur unplanned costs, be delayed in seeking and obtaining marketing approval, if we receive such approval at all, receive more limited or restrictive marketing approval, be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements or have the drug removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval.

​

The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of subsequent clinical trials.

​

48

Table of Contents

Although we recently initiated a phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion clinical trial of our only product candidate, THE-630, all of our programs are still in the early stage of development. The results of preclinical studies may not be predictive of the results of later preclinical studies or clinical trials, and the results of any early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Our future clinical trials may not ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any product candidates we may develop. There is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving encouraging results in earlier studies. Any such setbacks in our clinical development could materially harm our business and results of operations.

​

The design or our execution of our clinical trials may not support marketing approval.

​

The design or execution of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support marketing approval, and flaws in the design or execution of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced and significant resources have been expended.

​

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dose and dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Assessments of safety and efficacy can therefore vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. As a result, we do not know whether any clinical trials we conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop.

​

Additionally, even if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority agrees with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, such as our IND for THE-630, or comparable foreign regulatory submission, there is no guarantee such regulatory authority will not change its requirements in the future. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the product approval process and in determining when or whether to approve product candidates. For example, as more product candidates within a particular class of drugs proceed through clinical development to regulatory review and approval, the amount and type of clinical data that may be required by regulatory authorities may increase or change. Moreover, data obtained from clinical trials are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do. Regulators may require us to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies due to negative or inconclusive results. Any changes in requirements for the approval of product candidates made by these regulatory authorities may occur even after they have reviewed and provided comments or advice on a protocol for a planned clinical trial, including a registrational trial, and irrespective of whether product candidates achieve their primary endpoints in such trials.

​

Any of these regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request, or with other limitations, or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of product candidates, if approved.

​

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

​

49

Table of Contents

Because we have limited financial, managerial and research and development resources, we must prioritize our research programs and will need to focus product candidates on the potential treatment of certain indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may also relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

We face substantial competition which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

​

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, particularly the field of oncology, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, emerging and start-up companies, universities and other research institutions. For example, several biopharmaceutical companies, including Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc., Blueprint, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Deciphera, Kinnate Biopharma Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Nuvalent, Inc., Relay Therapeutics, Inc., Revolution Medicines, Inc., Scorpion Therapeutics, Turning Point Therapeutics, Inc. and Tyra Biosciences, Inc., are also developing precision oncology medicines.

​

Our competitors have developed, are developing or may develop products, product candidates and processes competitive with our product candidate. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. There are several approved therapies for the treatment of conditions for which we are attempting or may attempt to develop product candidates. In addition, we believe that a significant number of product candidates are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future. We also compete to recruit and retain qualified scientific and management personnel, which could negatively affect our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan. As a result, our potential commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects or are more convenient than any products that we may develop.

​

For example, with respect to our lead product candidate, THE-630, there are several large pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies marketing drugs for the treatment of GIST, including Blueprint, Novartis AG, Pfizer, Inc., Deciphera and Bayer AG. We are also aware of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies developing drugs for the treatment of GIST, including AB Sciences S.A., Arog Pharmaceuticals, Inc., CTTP, Cogent Biosciences, Inc., Exelixis, Inc., Immunicum AB, Jiangsu HengRui, Inc., Ningbo Tai Kang Medical Technology Co. Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Xencor, Inc. and Merck KGaA. In particular, Cogent has disclosed its registrational trial evaluating bezuclastinib in combination with sunitinib, which is being conducted in patients with second-line GIST. If successful, this combination may compete with THE-630 to the extent we are able to advance it into earlier lines of treatment for patients with GIST.

​

Additionally, with respect to our EGFR inhibitor program, we are aware of other pharmaceutical companies with approved drugs for treatment-resistant EGFR-mutant NSCLC, including AstraZeneca plc’s osimertinib, lazertinib, which is marketed by Yuhan Corp. in South Korea, and almonertinib, which is under collaboration between Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. and EQRX, Inc., which is approved in China. In addition, our EGFR inhibitor program may face competition from drug candidates in development for EGFR-mutated NSCLC, including those being developed by Alpha Biopharma Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Blueprint,

50

Table of Contents

Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co KG, Bridge Biotherapeutics, Inc., C4 Therapeutics, Inc., CTTP, Genosco Inc., Genprex, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

​

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our product candidates or that would render any product candidates that we may develop obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors.

​

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do.

​

We also face competition more broadly across the oncology market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drugs and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, product candidates may not be competitive with them. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or other specific branded products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and gaining significant share of the market for, any product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market may pose challenges. Additionally, product candidates may need to compete with drugs physicians use off-label to treat the indications for which we seek approval. This may make it difficult for us to replace existing therapies with our product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop. Moreover, many companies are developing new oncology therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as product candidates progress through clinical development.

​

If we are unable to compete effectively, our opportunity to generate revenue from the sale of any product candidates we may develop, if approved, could be adversely affected.

​

Interim, topline and preliminary data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

​

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary, interim or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. These updates are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data. These data should be viewed with caution as they may differ from future results of the same studies or trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. For example, we may report responses in certain patients that are unconfirmed at the time and which do not ultimately result in confirmed responses to treatment after follow-up evaluations. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. Certain data may also be subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. In addition, we may report interim analyses of only certain endpoints rather than all endpoints. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. If the preliminary, interim or topline data that we report differ from late, final or actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, any product candidates may be harmed. Adverse

51

Table of Contents

differences between preliminary, interim or topline data and final data, including that of our competitors, may also cause the price of our common stock to fluctuate or decline.

​

Product candidates may cause significant adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable side effects when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs.

​

We, the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or an IRB may suspend or terminate clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable safety risks or adverse side effects. For example, some potential therapeutics that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development.

​

While we have not yet completed clinical trials for our only product candidate, it is likely that there will be side effects associated with its use and the use of any additional product candidates that we may develop, as is typically the case with oncology drugs. Results of our studies or trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects or adverse events. In addition, product candidates may be studied in combination with other therapies, which may exacerbate adverse events associated with the therapy. Patients treated with product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to product candidate but may still impact the success of our clinical trials. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses. For example, it is expected that some of the patients enrolled in our clinical trials will die or experience major clinical events either during the course of or after participating in such trials for non-treatment related reasons. Moreover, product candidates may be used in populations for which safety concerns may be particularly scrutinized by regulatory agencies.

​

If product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in preclinical studies or clinical trials when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Drug-related side effects could also result in potential product liability claims.

​

Even if the side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Further, if product candidates obtain marketing approval, toxicities associated with such product candidates previously not seen during clinical testing may also develop after such approval and lead to a requirement to conduct additional clinical safety trials, additional contraindications, warnings and precautions being added to the drug label, significant restrictions on the use of the product or the withdrawal of the product from the market. We cannot predict whether our product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop will cause toxicities in humans that would preclude or lead to the revocation of regulatory approval based on preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials.

​

Any of these occurrences may prevent us from obtaining or maintaining regulatory approvals or achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and, accordingly, may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

​

If we encounter difficulties enrolling study subjects in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise be adversely affected.

​

Identifying and qualifying study subjects to participate in clinical trials of product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of initiation and completion of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit study subjects to participate in testing product candidates. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for product candidates, such as our phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion clinical

52

Table of Contents

trial for THE-630, if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible study subjects to participate in these clinical trials to their conclusion as required by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, if others develop products for the treatment of similar diseases, we would potentially compete with them for the enrollment in rare patient populations, which may adversely impact the rate of patient enrollment in and the timely completion of our current and planned clinical trials. Any negative results or perceived negative results in clinical trials of our product candidates may make it difficult or impossible to recruit or retain patients in other clinical trials of the same product candidate. Insufficient patient enrollment may be a function of other factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the timing and magnitude of disease symptom presentation, the availability of effective treatments for the relevant disease, and the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial. Our inability to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients for any of our current or future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials or development program. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has and is expected to continue to have an impact on our ability to enroll and retain patients in our clinical trials. Delays in patient enrollment in the future as a result of these and other factors may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our clinical trials, which could prevent us from completing these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

​

Changes in methods of product candidate formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

​

As product candidates progress through preclinical and clinical trials to marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program are altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield and manufacturing batch size, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. For example, we may introduce an alternative formulation of one or more product candidates during the course of our clinical trials. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize product candidates, if approved.

​

Risks Related to the Manufacturing, Commercialization and Marketing of Product Candidates

​

The manufacture of drugs is complex, and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production, which may delay or prevent our ability to provide adequate supply of product candidates for clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved.

​

Manufacturing drugs, especially in large quantities, is complex and may require the use of innovative technologies. Each lot of an approved drug product must undergo thorough testing for identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. Manufacturing drugs requires facilities specifically designed for and validated for this purpose, as well as sophisticated quality assurance and quality control procedures. Slight deviations anywhere in the manufacturing process, including filling, labeling, packaging, storage and shipping and quality control and testing, may result in lot failures, product recalls or spoilage. When changes are made to the manufacturing process, we may be required to provide preclinical and clinical data showing the comparable identity, strength, quality, purity or potency of the products before and after such changes. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at the facilities of our manufacturer, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and adversely harm our business. The use of biologically derived ingredients can also lead to allegations of harm, including infections or allergic reactions, or closure of product facilities due to possible contamination. If our third-party manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization as a result of these challenges, or otherwise, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

​

53

Table of Contents

We have never commercialized a product candidate as a company before and currently lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any products on our own or together with suitable collaborators.

​

We have never commercialized a product candidate as a company. For product candidates for which we retain commercialization rights and marketing approval, we will have to develop our own sales, marketing and supply organization or outsource these activities to a third party. We may also license certain rights with respect to product candidates to collaborators, and, if so, we will rely on the assistance and guidance of those collaborators. Establishing an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize product candidates will be expensive and time-consuming and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities could adversely impact the commercialization of any product candidates that we obtain approval to market if we do not have arrangements in place with third parties to provide such services on our behalf. Alternatively, if we choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems, we will be required to negotiate and enter into arrangements with such third parties relating to the proposed collaboration and such arrangements may prove to be less profitable than commercializing the product on our own. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed, on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates that receive regulatory approval, or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are unable to successfully commercialize our approved product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer, and we may incur significant additional losses.

​

The market opportunities for any product candidates we develop, if approved, may be limited to certain smaller patient subsets and may be smaller than we estimate them to be.

​

When cancer is detected early (referred to as localized disease), conventional treatments, which include chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery and radiation therapy and/or selected targeted therapies, may be adequate to cure the patient in many cases. However, if cancer has spread to other areas (advanced or metastatic disease), initial cancer treatments may not be sufficient and other cancer therapies may be considered. Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized by line of therapy (for example, first-, second-, third-, fourth- or fifth-line). The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities often approve cancer therapies for a particular line of treatment. Typically, drug approvals are initially granted for use in later lines of treatment. With additional evidence of significant efficacy and safety from clinical trials, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can seek, and sometimes gain, approval for use in earlier lines of treatment.

We plan to initially seek approval of our product candidate and, in most instances, any additional product candidates that we may develop where prior therapies have had limited clinical benefit or lost their effectiveness. For those product candidates that prove to be sufficiently safe and effective, if any, we would expect to seek approval as earlier lines of therapy. For example, our initial registration strategy with respect to THE-630 will focus on fifth-line GIST. Depending on the clinical data observed in the phase 1/2 trial, we intend to evaluate THE-630 in second-line GIST. There is no guarantee that THE-630 or any product candidates we may develop in the future, even if approved in later lines of therapy, would be approved for an earlier line of therapy, and prior to any such approvals we may have to conduct additional clinical trials that may be costly, time-consuming and subject to risk.

​

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 a particular line of therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, which could include scientific literature, surveys of clinics or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of the cancers that we are targeting. The potentially addressable patient population for product

54

Table of Contents

candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with product candidates, particularly if product candidates are only approved for later lines of treatment. Consequently, even if product candidates are approved, the number of patients that may be eligible for treatment with product candidates may turn out to be much lower than expected. In addition, we have not conducted market research to determine how treating physicians would expect to prescribe a product that is approved for multiple tumor types if there are different lines of approved therapies for each such tumor type.

​

Product candidates, if approved, may not achieve adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

​

Even if product candidates ultimately receive regulatory approval, they may not gain adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidates that may be approved in the future will depend on a number of factors, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

If any product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate or derive sufficient revenue from that product candidate, and our financial results could be negatively impacted.

​

Any product candidates we develop may become subject to unfavorable third-party coverage and reimbursement practices.

​

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government health care programs, private health insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of any product

55

Table of Contents

candidates that receive marketing approval will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of such product candidates will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors. If coverage is not available, or is available only in limited circumstances, we may not be able to successfully commercialize product candidates.

​

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is (1) a covered benefit under its health plan; (2) safe, effective and medically necessary; (3) appropriate for the specific patient; (4) cost-effective; and (5) neither experimental nor investigational. For example, in order to obtain reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. Additionally, eligibility for coverage does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services.

​

Moreover, in the United States, principal decisions about Medicare reimbursement for new products are typically made by or on behalf of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS. CMS and regional contractors responsible for administering the Medicare program decide whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private third-party payors often follow these decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors, and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly. This process may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available consistently or obtained in the first instance. Reimbursement agencies in Europe may be more conservative than CMS. For example, a number of cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the United States and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries.

​

Third-party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific product candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of our products. Notwithstanding the results of these studies, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be.

​

In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics. Further, if any companion diagnostic provider is unable to obtain reimbursement or is inadequately reimbursed, that may limit the availability of such companion diagnostic, which would negatively impact prescriptions for product candidates, if approved.

If we are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any product candidates from third-party payors, the adoption of those products and sales revenue will be adversely affected, which, in

56

Table of Contents

turn, could adversely affect the ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Any of these could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Downward pressure on healthcare costs may negatively affect the coverage and pricing of product candidates.

​

The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. Legislative or regulatory requirements related to pricing and reimbursement may limit our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates and therefore affect such product candidate’s commercial viability, if approved. Moreover, third-party payors are increasingly requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the commercialization of any product candidates, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

A variety of risks associated with marketing product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.

​

We may seek regulatory approval of product candidates outside of the United States and, accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries if we obtain the necessary approvals, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

57

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

These and other risks associated with international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations, our product development efforts or our potential clinical trials.

​

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval Process and Other Healthcare Compliance Matters

​

We may be unable to obtain U.S. or foreign regulatory approval and, as a result, may be unable to commercialize product candidates.

​

We have not submitted for, or obtained, regulatory approval for any drug product candidate, and it is possible that no product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval.

​

Drug product candidates are and will continue to be subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to, among other things, research, testing, development, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, approval, recordkeeping, reporting, labeling, storage, packaging, advertising and promotion, pricing, and distribution of drugs. Rigorous preclinical testing and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory approval process must be successfully completed in the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions before a new drug can be approved for marketing. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays.

Moreover, the standards that the FDA and its foreign counterparts use when evaluating clinical trial data can, and often do, change during drug development, which makes it difficult to predict with any certainty how they will be applied. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations, including future legislation or administrative action, or changes in applicable FDA or any other regulatory policy during the period of drug development, clinical trials and regulatory review and approval. Accordingly, the time required to obtain approvals from the FDA or any other regulatory authorities is unpredictable and will take many years, depending upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidate. We cannot provide any assurance that any product candidate we may develop will progress through required clinical testing and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for us to begin selling them.

​

Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process. Applications for product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

​

​

58

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

Any delay or failure in seeking or obtaining required approvals would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from any particular product candidates we are developing and for which we are seeking approval. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a drug may be approved for a narrower patient population than we originally requested or subject to significant limitations on the approved uses or indications for which we may market, promote and advertise the drug or the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a REMS as part of approving an NDA, or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug. These requirements or restrictions might include limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may significantly limit the size of the market for the drug and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.

​

There are also numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries, and generally includes all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval.

​

We may develop our current or future product candidates in combination with other therapies, which would expose us to additional risks.

​

We may develop our current or future product candidates in combination with one or more currently approved cancer therapies or therapies in development. Even if any of our current or future product candidates were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with any product candidates, or safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. In addition, it is possible that existing therapies with which product candidates are approved for use could themselves fall out of favor or be relegated to later lines of treatment. This could result in the need to identify other combination therapies for product candidates or our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

​

59

Table of Contents

We may also evaluate our current or future product candidates in combination with one or more other cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market any product candidate in combination with any such unapproved cancer therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval.

​

If the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not approve or withdraw their approval of these other therapies, or if safety, efficacy, commercial adoption, manufacturing or supply issues arise with the therapies we choose to evaluate in combination with any of our current or future product candidates, we may be unable to obtain approval of or successfully market any one or all of the current or future product candidates we develop. Additionally, if the third-party providers of therapies or therapies in development used in combination with our current or future product candidates are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization of our current or future product candidates, or if the cost of combination therapies are prohibitive, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operations and growth prospects.

​

The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from trials conducted in locations outside of their jurisdiction.

​

We anticipate we will conduct clinical trials of our product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop both in and outside the United States. The acceptance of study data by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from United States clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the foreign countries outside the United States, the standards for clinical trials and approval may be different. There can be no assurance that the FDA or foreign regulatory authority would accept data from trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in product candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

​

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of product candidates in other jurisdictions.

​

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing and promotion and reimbursement of the product candidate in those jurisdictions. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to governmental approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we or any collaborator fails to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our potential product candidates will be harmed.

​

60

Table of Contents

Even if product candidates receive regulatory approval, they will be subject to significant post-marketing regulatory requirements and oversight.

​

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and on-going surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements and regulatory inspection. In addition, if the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, as well as on-going compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, our contract manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

​

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with any approved products, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

61

Table of Contents

The FDA and any other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of product candidates or impose additional requirements post-approval. 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. Compliance with these post-marketing requirements may result in significant costs. 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. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize product candidates, if approved, and generate revenue.

​

The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations governing advertising and promotion, including those prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

​

The FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotion and advertisement of prescription drug products, such as our products, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted in the United States for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling, or in other jurisdictions for uses that differ from the labeling or uses approved by the applicable regulatory agencies. While physicians may prescribe products for off-label uses, the FDA and any other regulatory agencies actively enforce laws and regulations that prohibit the promotion of off-label uses by manufacturers, including promotional communications made by companies’ sales force with respect to off-label uses that are not consistent with the approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The U.S. federal government and state governments have also required that drug manufacturers enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

​

If we are required by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority to obtain approval of a companion diagnostic test in connection with approval of any product candidates or a group of therapeutic products, and we do not obtain or we face delays in developing and obtaining approval of a diagnostic test, we may not be able to commercialize the product candidate and our ability to generate revenue would be materially impaired.

​

If we are required by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority to obtain approval of a companion diagnostic test in connection with approval of any product candidates, such companion diagnostic test would be used during our more advanced phase clinical trials as well as in connection with the commercialization of product candidates. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by FDA and, unless an exemption applies, require premarket clearance or approval by FDA. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are clearance of a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FDCA, or 510(k), and approval of a premarket approval application, or PMA. According to FDA guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared at the same time the product candidate is approved. To date, the FDA has required PMA approval of all companion diagnostic tests for cancer therapies. Various foreign regulatory authorities also regulate in vitro companion diagnostics as medical devices and, under those regulatory frameworks, will likely require the conduct of clinical trials or performance studies to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of our current diagnostics and any future diagnostics we may develop, which we expect will require separate regulatory clearance or approval prior to commercialization.

​

The approval of a companion diagnostic as part of the therapeutic product’s labeling limits the use of the therapeutic product to only those patients who express certain biomarkers or the specific genomic alteration

62

Table of Contents

that the companion diagnostic was developed to detect. If the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority requires approval of a companion diagnostic for any product candidates, whether before or concurrently with approval of the product candidate, we and our collaborators, may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic could cause or contribute to delayed enrollment of our clinical trials, may prevent us from initiating a pivotal trial or may delay or prevent approval or continued marketing of our related product candidates.

Further, in April 2020, the FDA issued new guidance on developing and labeling companion diagnostics for a specific group of oncology therapeutic products, including recommendations to support a broader labeling claim rather than individual therapeutic products. We will continue to evaluate the impact of this guidance on our companion diagnostic development and strategy. This guidance and future issuances from the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may impact our development of a companion diagnostic for product candidates and result in delays in regulatory approval. We may be required to conduct additional studies to support a broader labeling claim. Also, to the extent other approved diagnostics are able to broaden their labeling claims to include our approved drug products, we may be forced to abandon our companion diagnostic development plans or we may not be able to compete effectively upon approval, which could adversely impact our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our approved products and our business operations.

​

To be successful in developing, validating, obtaining approval of and commercializing a companion diagnostic, we or our collaborators will need to address a number of scientific, technical, regulatory and logistical challenges. We have no prior experience with medical device or diagnostic test development. If we choose to develop and seek FDA approval for companion diagnostic tests on our own, we will require additional personnel. Additionally, we may rely on third parties for the design, development and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for product candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. It may be necessary to resolve issues such as selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics during the development and regulatory approval processes. Moreover, even if data from preclinical studies and early clinical trials appear to support development of a companion diagnostic for a product candidate, data generated in later clinical trials may fail to support the analytical and clinical validation of the companion diagnostic. We and our collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing and commercializing companion diagnostics similar to those we face with respect to product candidates themselves, including issues with achieving regulatory clearance or approval, production of sufficient quantities at commercial scale and with appropriate quality standards, and in gaining market acceptance. In addition, a diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of product candidates.

​

If we are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of product candidates may be adversely affected, product candidates may not obtain marketing approval, and we may not realize the full commercial potential of any product candidates that obtain marketing approval. As a result, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed.

​

Where appropriate, we plan to seek approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities through the use of an accelerated approval pathway. If we are unable to obtain agreement from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to pursue accelerated approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we

63

Table of Contents

contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA or such other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.

​

Where possible, we plan to pursue accelerated development strategies in areas of high unmet need. We may seek an accelerated approval pathway for one or more product candidates from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Under the accelerated approval provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the FDA’s implementing regulations and guidance for the industry, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality.

​

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. If such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug.

​

Prior to seeking accelerated approval, we will seek feedback from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit an NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent feedback from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or under another expedited regulatory designation (for example, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation), there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. Further, Congress or the FDA may change the criteria and requirements for the accelerated approval pathway in such a way that either makes it unavailable to us or more burdensome for us to utilize. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidate would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

​

We may seek Fast Track designation from the FDA for one or more product candidates. Even if one or more product candidates receive Fast Track designation, we may be unable to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with the Fast Track designation.

​

Fast Track designation is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of therapies for serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need. Programs with Fast Track designation may benefit from early and frequent communications with the FDA, potential priority review and the ability to submit a rolling application for regulatory review. Fast Track designation applies to both the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. If any product candidates receive Fast Track designation but

64

Table of Contents

do not continue to meet the criteria for Fast Track designation, or if our clinical trials are delayed, suspended or terminated, or put on clinical hold due to unexpected adverse events or issues with clinical supply, we will not receive the benefits associated with the Fast Track program. Furthermore, Fast Track designation does not change the standards for approval. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

​

If we decide to apply for Fast Track designation, we must submit a request to FDA for evaluation. Even if we believe that a product candidate meets the criteria for this designation, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Further, even if we receive a Fast Track designation, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if any product candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification and withdraw the designation or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

​

A Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA, even if granted for any product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that product candidates will receive marketing approval.

​

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for one or more of our current or future product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development.

​

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is largely within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that a product candidate meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to candidate products considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more product candidates are designated as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification and revoke the designation.

​

While we received orphan drug designation from the FDA for THE-630 for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors, we may not be able to obtain orphan drug designation for THE-630 for other indications or other product candidates, or obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity if obtained and, even if we do, that exclusivity may not prevent the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, from approving all competing products.

​

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 designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. Our target indications may include diseases with large patient populations or may include orphan indications.

​

In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax credits and user-fee exemptions. In addition, if a product candidate that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product candidate is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug

65

Table of Contents

exclusivity in the United States provides that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances. In the EU, orphan exclusivity prevents marketing authorization applications being accepted for similar products for the orphan indication for a period of 10 years. This period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

​

We have received orphan drug designation from the FDA for THE-630 for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. However, there can be no assurances that we will be able to obtain orphan designations for THE-630 for other indications or other product candidates in the U.S. or any other jurisdictions. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. We may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of any product candidate for which we have obtained orphan drug designation for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to ensure that we will be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care or the manufacturer of the product with orphan exclusivity is unable to maintain sufficient product quantity. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process or entitles the product candidate to priority review. Similar rules apply in the EU.

​

We may face difficulties from changes to current regulations and future legislation. Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

​

Existing regulatory policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of 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.

​

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or, collectively, the ACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and continues to significantly impact the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Certain provisions have been subject to judicial and Congressional challenges, as well as efforts by a past U.S. presidential administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, for example, included a provision repealing, 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.” The ACA has been challenged numerous times in various court cases, including challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the most recent case (decided in June 2021) the Supreme Court held that the individual plaintiffs and states lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA.

​

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes included reductions of Medicare payments to providers of up to 2%, effective April 1, 2013,

66

Table of Contents

which, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2030 unless additional congressional action is taken (these reductions were temporarily suspended due to COVID-19 pandemic; the suspension is currently set to expire in March 2022). Additionally, in January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. It is possible that new laws that would result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, may be enacted, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

​

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in numerous 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 assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, former President Trump used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders, and policy initiatives. It is unclear whether the Biden administration will reverse those measures or pursue similar or other policy initiatives, for example related to an independent review board or other mechanisms that would impact drug pricing and reimbursement. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. In addition, at the state level, individual states have increasingly proposed or adopted legislation and regulations related to 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.

​

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future. Such reform measures may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. We are, however, unable to predict the future course of federal or state healthcare legislation in the United States directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare, particularly in light of the new presidential administration. These and any further changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our revenue or increase our costs could also have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Inadequate funding for the FDA and other U.S. government agencies or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, COVID-19 and other factors could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal

67

Table of Contents

business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

​

The ability of the FDA and other U.S. government agencies or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result.

​

In addition, government funding of government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. For example, in recent years, including in 2018 and 2019, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities.

​

Separately, since March 2020 when foreign and domestic inspections were largely placed on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA has been working to resume routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections on a prioritized basis. The FDA has developed a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections and resumed inspections in China and India in early 2021. In April 2021, the FDA issued guidance for industry formally announcing plans to employ remote interactive evaluations, using risk management methods, to meet user fee commitments and goal dates, and in May 2021 announced plans to continue progress toward resuming standard operational levels. Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, and the FDA does not determine a remote interactive evaluation to be appropriate, the agency has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. In 2020, several companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures on inspections in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. As recently as late 2021, when COVID-19 infection surged due to the highly transmissible omicron variant, FDA again paused routine inspections. While the Agency resumed routine inspections again relatively quickly in February 2022, the ongoing pandemic may continue to cause periodic interruptions in FDA’s ability to conduct inspections and further exacerbate the backlog of inspections.

​

Disruptions at the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authority may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent or delay the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting business as usual or conducting inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

​

Our relationships with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, clinical trial sites, CROs and third-party payors in connection with our current and future business activities may be subject to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws, the noncompliance of which could expose us to significant losses, including, among other things, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, exclusion from governmental healthcare programs, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

​

68

Table of Contents

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as market, sell and distribute product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

​

The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to: (i) the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; (ii) federal civil and criminal false claims law; (iii) the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, relating to schemes to defraud any healthcare benefit program; (iv) HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization; (v) the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA and its implementing regulations, relating to reporting obligations to HHS in respect of information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals; (vi) federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws; and (vii) analogous state and foreign laws and regulations.

​

Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare and data privacy laws and regulations, as well as responding to investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business.

​

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, debarment or refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

​

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

​

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates: (1) the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDA regulations or

69

Table of Contents

those of comparable foreign regulatory authorities , (2) GCP or cGMP, (3) federal and state health and data privacy, security, fraud and abuse, government price reporting, transparency reporting requirements, and other healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, (4) sexual harassment and other workplace misconduct, or (5) laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of clinical information or data. In particular, research, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation.

​

We have adopted a code of conduct and have contracts in place with third parties, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by these parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

​

Risks Related to Employee Matters, Managing Our Growth and Other Risks Related to Our Business

​

Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of health epidemics, including the evolving effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, in regions where we or third parties on which we rely have significant manufacturing facilities, concentrations of potential clinical trial sites or other business operations.

​

Health epidemics in regions where we have concentrations of potential clinical trial sites or other business operations could adversely affect our business, including by causing significant disruption in the operations of third parties upon whom we rely. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented a substantial public health and economic challenge around the world and is affecting employees, patients, communities and business operations, as well as the U.S. economy and financial markets. Several of our third-party suppliers and contractors are located in countries and regions that have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 global pandemic. In March 2020, the U.S. government imposed bans and restrictions on travel between the United States, Asia and certain other continents and countries and other countries have restricted travel to and from the United States.

​

In addition, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of:

​

​

​

​

​

70

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Furthermore, while the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, the pandemic could continue to produce significant and prolonged disruption of or volatility in 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 COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of efficacy of vaccines or lack of vaccine availability could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock. In addition, to the extent the evolving effects of the 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 elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section.

​

Our success is highly dependent on our ability to attract, hire and retain highly skilled executive officers and employees.

​

We currently have a small team focused on research and development of small molecule TKIs. To succeed, we must recruit, hire, retain, manage and motivate qualified clinical, scientific, technical and management personnel, and we face significant competition for experienced personnel. We are highly dependent on the principal members of our management and scientific and medical staff, including our founders. The loss of one or more of such persons could be detrimental to us if we cannot recruit suitable replacements in a timely manner. In particular, our research and development approach, including our PRA, was developed over years of our management team’s experience in developing approved therapeutics at ARIAD. The loss of any of these personnel could result in delays in our product development efforts and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

71

Table of Contents

Moreover, if we do not succeed in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly at the management level, it could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and harm our operating results. We could in the future have difficulty attracting and retaining experienced personnel and may be required to expend significant financial resources in our employee recruitment and retention efforts. Many of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide higher compensation, more diverse opportunities and better prospects for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover, develop and commercialize product candidates will be limited and the potential for successfully growing our business will be harmed.

​

We will need to grow the size and capabilities of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

​

As of February 28, 2022, we had 26 full-time employees, including 13 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and clinical trial plans and strategies, and as we transition into operating as a public company, we expect to need significant additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

​

​

​

​

​

Our future financial performance and our ability to successfully develop and, if approved, commercialize product candidates developed from our pan-KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs and any other programs will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

​

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including key aspects of research, clinical development, manufacturing and regulatory approval. In particular, we do not currently operate our own laboratory facilities, and we rely completely on the services of independent contractors and consultants for the conduct of preclinical studies and clinical trials. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by third-party service providers is compromised for any reason, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing approval for any product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing third-party service providers or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

​

72

Table of Contents

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and/or engaging additional third-party service providers, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our pan-KIT and EGFR inhibitor programs and any of our other product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

​

Our internal computer systems, or those of any of our CROs, manufacturers, other contractors or consultants or collaborators, may fail or suffer actual or suspected security or data privacy breaches or other unauthorized or improper access to, use of, or destruction of our proprietary or confidential data, employee data, or personal data, which could result in additional costs, loss of revenue, significant liabilities, harm to our brand and material disruption of our operations, and potentially significant delays in our delivery to market.

​

We are increasingly dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit confidential information (including but not limited to intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information). It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information. We also have outsourced elements of our operations to third parties, and as a result we manage a number of third-party CROs, other contractors (including sites performing our anticipated clinical trials) and consultants who have access to our confidential information. Our internal information technology systems and infrastructure are also vulnerable to damage from natural disasters, terrorism, war or other military conflict, telecommunication and electrical failures. System failures or outages, including any potential disruptions due to significantly increased global demand on certain cloud-based systems during the COVID-19 pandemic, could compromise our ability to perform these functions in a timely manner, which could harm our ability to conduct business or delay our financial reporting. Such failures could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

​

Despite the implementation of security measures in an effort to protect systems that store our information, given their size and complexity and the increasing amounts of information maintained on our internal information technology systems and external processing and storage systems (for example, cloud), and those of our third-party CROs, other contractors and consultants, these systems are potentially vulnerable to breakdown or other damage or interruption from service interruptions, system malfunction, natural disasters, terrorism, war or other military conflict and telecommunication and electrical failures, as well as security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties (including the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information), which may compromise our system infrastructure or lead to the loss, destruction, alteration or dissemination of, or damage to, our data. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. The COVID-19 increased the attack surface available for exploitation, as more companies and individuals work online and work remotely, and as such, the risk of a cybersecurity incident potentially occurring, and our investment in risk mitigations against such an incident, is increasing. For example, there has been an increase in phishing and spam emails as well as social engineering attempts from “hackers” hoping to use the recent COVID-19 pandemic to their advantage. In addition, due to the political uncertainty involving Russia and Ukraine, there is an increased likelihood that escalation of tensions could result in cyberattacks that could either directly or indirectly impact our operations.

​

We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, nor may we be able to implement preventive measures effective against all such security threats. The techniques used by cyber criminals change frequently, may not be recognized until launched and can originate from a wide variety of sources, including outside groups such as external service providers, organized crime affiliates, terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments or agencies. While we have not experienced any such system failure, accident or security breach to date, we cannot assure our stockholders that our data protection efforts and our investment

73

Table of Contents

in information technology will prevent significant breakdowns, data leakages, breaches in our systems, or those of our third-party CROs, other contractors and consultants, or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations or financial condition.

​

For example, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, or those of our third-party CROs, other contractors and consultants, it could result in a material disruption of our programs and the development of product candidates could be delayed. In addition, the loss of data from preclinical studies or clinical trial data could result in delays in our marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Furthermore, significant disruptions of our internal information technology systems or those of our third-party CROs, other contractors and consultants, or security breaches could result in the loss, misappropriation, and/or unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, data (including trade secrets or other confidential information, intellectual property, proprietary business information, and personal information). Any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our clinical trial subjects or employees, could harm our reputation directly, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to financial exposure related to investigation of the incident (including cost of forensic examinations), subject us to mandatory corrective action, and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information (including under HIPAA), which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have an adverse effect on our business. Moreover, if the information technology systems of our third-party CROs, other contractors and consultants become subject to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such an event, and to develop and implement protections to prevent future events of this nature from occurring.

​

Our insurance policies may not be adequate to compensate us for the potential losses arising from any such disruption in or, failure or security breach of our systems or third-party systems where information important to our business operations or commercial development is stored. In addition, such insurance may not be available to us in the future on economically reasonable terms, or at all. Further, our insurance may not cover all claims made against us and could have high deductibles in any event, and defending a suit, regardless of its merit, could be costly and divert management attention.

​

Accordingly, significant breakdowns or breaches in systems or other cyber incidents that cause loss, destruction, unavailability, alteration or dissemination of, or damage to, our data could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations or financial condition.

​

Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and if we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance coverage such inability could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

​

Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in an investigation by the FDA or any other regulatory authority of the safety and effectiveness of our products, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs. FDA or any other regulatory authority investigations could potentially lead to a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources and substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients. We currently have product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels prior to advancing product candidates into clinical trials or marketing any product candidates, if approved. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a

74

Table of Contents

result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

​

We may not be able to utilize a significant portion of our net operating loss carryforwards.

​

We have generated, and expect to continue to generate in the future, significant federal and state net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards. As of December 31, 2021, we had $34.6 million and $34.1 million in federal and state NOL carryforwards, respectively. We do not anticipate generating revenue from sales of product candidates for the foreseeable future, if ever, and we may never achieve profitability. These 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. The state NOL carryforwards will begin to expire in 2037. Additionally, under the TCJA, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, although federal NOL carryforwards incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and in future taxable years may be carried forward indefinitely, the deductibility of such federal NOL carryforwards incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020 is limited. In particular, the deductibility of such federal NOL carryforwards may be limited to 80% of current year taxable income for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOL carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. It is uncertain how various states will respond to the TCJA and CARES Act.

​

In addition, under Section 382 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,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. The amount of the annual limitation is determined based on the value of a company immediately prior to the ownership change. Subsequent ownership changes may further affect the limitation in future years. The completion of our initial public offering in October 2021, together with private placements and other transactions that have occurred since our inception, may trigger such an ownership change pursuant to Section 382 of the Code. We have not yet completed a Section 382 analysis. We may experience ownership changes as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. If an ownership change occurs or our ability to use our NOL carryforwards is otherwise materially limited, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. We have a full valuation allowance for deferred tax assets including NOLs.

​

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

​

We depend on intellectual property licensed from ARIAD, the termination of which could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.

​

We are dependent on technology, patents, know-how and proprietary materials, both our own and licensed from ARIAD. We entered into a license agreement with ARIAD in June 2018, or the ARIAD License Agreement, pursuant to which we acquired an exclusive, transferable (subject to certain restrictions), sublicensable (subject to certain conditions), worldwide license, under certain of ARIAD’s patent rights, know-how and compounds and a certain ARIAD chemical library, to develop, use, manufacture, market and commercialize certain compounds, and products that contain such compounds, that are therapeutically useful for the treatment of diseases and disorders in humans, including with respect to KIT, a type of receptor tyrosine kinase and tumor marker.

​

Any termination of this license will result in the loss of significant rights and will restrict our ability to develop and commercialize our pan-KIT inhibitor product candidates, including our lead product candidate, THE-630. For example, ARIAD may terminate the ARIAD License Agreement (1) for our uncured material breach of such agreement, (2) if we, or any of our affiliates or sublicensees, commence, and do not stop after receiving

75

Table of Contents

notice from ARIAD, any interference or opposition proceeding in relation to, challenges to the validity or enforceability of, or opposition to any extension of or the grant of a supplementary protection certificate with respect to, any ARIAD patent or patent application licensed under this agreement, or (3) in the event of our bankruptcy. Moreover, if we or ARIAD fails to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize our pan-KIT inhibitors, including THE-630, may be impaired. See “―Risks Related to Intellectual Property―Our rights to develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates may be subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others” and “―Risks Related to Intellectual Property―If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.”

​

If we and our licensors and collaborators, if any, are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient patent and other intellectual property protection for product candidates and technology, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and we may not be able to compete effectively in our market or successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop.

​

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability and the ability of our licensors and collaborators, if any, to obtain, maintain, enforce and defend patents and other intellectual property rights with respect to product candidates and technology and to operate our business without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of others. If we and our licensors and our collaborators, if any, are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors and other third parties could develop and commercialize product candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability and the ability of our collaborators to successfully commercialize product candidates that we and our collaborators may pursue may be impaired.

​

To establish our proprietary position, we have filed patent applications in the United States related to our novel product candidates that are important to our business, and we have exclusively licensed certain patent applications from ARIAD; we may in the future also license or purchase issued patents or pending patent applications filed by others. Given the very early stage of development of our only product candidate and development programs, our patent portfolio is similarly at a very early stage. In particular, as of December 31, 2021, we had exclusively licensed one issued U.S. patent and one pending U.S. application relating to THE-630, we owned two pending U.S. provisional patent applications relating to THE-630, and we owned two pending U.S. provisional patent applications and one pending PCT patent application relating to our EGFR inhibitor program. Accordingly, our current patent rights provide us with limited legal right to prevent third parties from competing with us in any way. If we do not obtain additional meaningful patent coverage for product candidates, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which would likely harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. U.S. provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of filing of one or more of our related provisional patent applications. With regard to such U.S. provisional patent applications, if we do not timely file any non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. While we intend to timely file non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether any such patent applications will result in the issuance of patents that provide us with any competitive advantage. If we are unable to secure or maintain patent protection with respect to product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

​

We cannot be certain that the claims in U.S. patent applications (including provisional and non-provisional), corresponding international patent applications and patent applications in certain foreign territories, or those of our licensors and collaborators, will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark

76

Table of Contents

Office, or 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 future issued patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged. Moreover, the patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we, any licensors or any collaborators will be successful in protecting product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our patent applications or the patent applications of our licensors and collaborators will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology.

​

The patent prosecution process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we and our licensors and collaborators 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 possible that we or our licensors and collaborators will fail to identify important patentable aspects of our research and development efforts in time to obtain appropriate or any patent protection or fail to file patent applications covering inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before a competitor or another third party files a patent application covering, or publishes information disclosing, a similar, independently-developed invention. Such competitor’s or other third party’s patent application may pose obstacles to our ability to obtain patent protection or limit the scope of the patent protection we or our licensors and collaborators may obtain. In addition, although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

​

Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time

77

Table of Contents

after filing or until issuance, we may not be certain that we or our licensors are the first to either (1) file any patent application related to product candidates or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in the patents or patent applications. Similarly, publications of discoveries in the scientific and scholarly literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors and collaborators were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or in-licensed patent rights and patent applications or were the first to file for patent protection on the inventions claimed in our pending patent applications. Further, 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.

​

The degree of future protection for our and our licensors’ proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available. 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, as described further throughout “―Risks Related to Intellectual Property.” As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours, and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. These uncertainties and/or limitations in our ability to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

​

If the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical product candidates would be adversely affected.

​

The patent position of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications and those of our licensors and collaborators may not result in patents being issued that protect product candidates or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive product candidates.

​

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we own or in-license in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we own or in-license may be challenged or circumvented by third parties or may be narrowed or invalidated as a result of challenges by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents or the patents of our licensors and collaborators by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents or the patents of our licensors may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or third-party observations at the European Patent Office, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant review, or PGR, and inter partes review, or IPR, or other similar proceedings challenging our owned patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, our patents or the patents of our licensors may become subject to post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our patents and patent applications and those of our licensors. Such challenges may result in

78

Table of Contents

loss of patent rights, 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 technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications or the patents and patent applications of our licensors is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

​

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

​

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

​

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. Claims by third parties that we infringe their proprietary rights may result in liability for damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts.

​

79

Table of Contents

Our commercial success depends significantly on avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. 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 product candidates. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, oppositions, reexaminations, IPR proceedings and PGR proceedings before the USPTO and/or corresponding foreign patent offices. Accordingly, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties.

​

As the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. Patent applications are maintained as confidential for a certain period of time, until the relevant application is published. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently-pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that product candidates may infringe. 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. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe is relevant to our business, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Thus, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of any product candidates, and we cannot be certain that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product candidate or technology.

​

Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time consuming and could:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Although no third party has asserted a claim of patent infringement against us as of the date of this Annual Report, it is possible that a third party may assert a claim of patent infringement directed at any product candidates in the future. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to product candidates, treatment indications, or processes could subject us to significant liability for damages, including treble damages if we were determined to willfully infringe, and require us to obtain a license to manufacture or market product candidates. 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 cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable

80

Table of Contents

terms, if at all. Moreover, even if we or our strategic partners or collaborators were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. In addition, we cannot be certain that we could redesign product candidates, treatment indications, or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results. In addition, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity and could prohibit us from marketing or otherwise commercializing product candidates and technology.

​

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings could cause us to incur significant expenses, distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities, delay development of product candidates, subject us to significant uncertainties and harm our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. See “―Risks Related to Intellectual Property―Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities” and “―Risks Related to Intellectual Property―Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our common shares to decline.”

​

Our rights to develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates are subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.

​

We have licensed, and may in the future license, patent and other intellectual property rights from other parties. We may enter into additional license agreements in the future with others to advance our existing or future research or allow commercialization of our existing or future product candidates. These licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and products in the future. We may also need to devote substantial time and attention to ensuring that we successfully integrate these transactions into our existing operations and are compliant with our obligations under these agreements, which may divert management’s time and attention away from our research and development programs or other day-to-day activities.

​

In addition, subject to the terms of any such license agreements, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement, and defense of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from third parties. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced, and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce, and defend such patents or patent applications, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, and our right to develop and commercialize any of our future product candidates that are subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.

​

Our licensors may rely on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-license. If other third parties have ownership rights to our future in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

​

It is possible that we may be unable to obtain licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly.

81

Table of Contents

​

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

​

Disputes may arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In addition, the agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. In the event of any disagreement about the interpretation of these provisions, our management may need to devote a disproportionate amount of its attention to resolving these disagreements. Such disruptions may cause delays in our research and development programs and other business objectives. Additionally, the resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we license in the future prevent or impair our ability to maintain our licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

​

In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

​

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

​

Because our development programs may in the future require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these third-party proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for

82

Table of Contents

product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

​

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or our licensors’ patents, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents or our licensors’ patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

​

Competitors and other third parties may infringe or otherwise violate our patents or other intellectual property or the patents or other intellectual property of our licensors. In addition, our patents or the patents of our licensors may become involved in inventorship or priority disputes. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. To counter infringement or other unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Our ability to enforce patent rights also depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products and services. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product or service. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents or that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. In a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our owned or licensed patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. We may find it impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties.

​

If we or licensors were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed to our product candidate or any additional product candidates that we may develop, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent or that of our licensor is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or insufficient written description. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be 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 the USPTO or an equivalent foreign body, even outside the context of litigation. Potential proceedings include re-examination, PGR, IPR, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (for example, opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our technology or any product candidates that we may develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on the applicable product candidates or technology covered by the patent rendered invalid or unenforceable.

83

Table of Contents

​

Some of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon, misappropriating or otherwise violating our intellectual property.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings could cause us to incur significant expenses, distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities, delay development of product candidates, subject us to significant uncertainties and harm our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources, distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities and subject us to significant uncertainties.

​

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. Moreover, some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources.

​

In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to initiate or continue our preclinical studies and clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology or other product candidates or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize product candidates, if approved. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications or the patents and patent applications of our licensors is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Accordingly, these uncertainties could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings. These uncertainties could cause the price of shares of our common stock to decline, as well as have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our common shares to decline.

​

During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings or developments in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing product candidates, approved products, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of shares of our common stock may decline. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

Derivation proceedings may be necessary to determine priority of inventions, and an unfavorable outcome may require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights from the prevailing party.

​

Derivation 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. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to

84

Table of Contents

license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our development programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring product candidates to market.

Changes in patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect product candidates.

​

Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is inherently uncertain, due in part to ongoing changes in the patent laws. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. In the United States, depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents, and interpretation thereof, could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing or future patents. Moreover, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Therefore, there is increased uncertainty with regard to our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain patents in the future, as well as uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained.

​

In addition, Congress or other foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us. Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our and our licensors’ or collaborators’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ or collaborators’ issued patents. For example, in the United States, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, which was signed into law in September 2011, 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, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application.

​

The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including PGR, IPR, and derivation proceedings. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.

​

The USPTO has developed regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, particularly the first

85

Table of Contents

inventor-to-file provisions. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ issued patents, including for the reasons described above. Similarly, statutory or judicial changes to the patent laws of other countries may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Any of these could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

​

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing product candidates. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning this intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our or our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to product candidates. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings could cause us to incur significant expenses, distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities, delay development of product candidates, subject us to significant uncertainties and harm our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on 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 product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our own patented product and practicing our own patented technology. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

​

If we or our licensors do not obtain patent term extension for product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

​

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents or those of our licensors may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. A maximum of one patent may be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory

86

Table of Contents

review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of product candidates. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

​

We and our licensors may not be able to protect intellectual property rights throughout the world.

​

Although we or our licensors have pending patent applications in the United States and other countries, filing, prosecuting and defending patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights and those of our licensors in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our intellectual property 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 product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop, and our patents, the patents of our licensors, or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

​

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many foreign countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or our licensors’ patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights. 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 or the patents of our licensors at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications or the patent applications of our licensors 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.

​

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of the applicable patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. 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.

​

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements imposed by regulations and governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

87

Table of Contents

​

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to the USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications and those of our licensors. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official communications within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. While an inadvertent lapse can in some cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in irrevocable abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If we or our licensors or collaborators fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

​

We use and intend to use registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names to brand and market ourselves and our products. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

​

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

​

We rely on the protection of our trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information to maintain our competitive position. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

​

Moreover, third parties may still obtain this information or may come upon this or similar information independently, and we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced, and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

​

88

Table of Contents

We may be subject to claims that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets.

​

We have entered into and may in the future enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements to protect the proprietary positions of third parties, such as outside scientific collaborators, CROs, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors, potential partners, and other third parties. We may become subject to litigation where a third party asserts that we or our employees inadvertently or otherwise breached the agreements and used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to the third parties. Failure to successfully defend against any such claim could subject us to significant liability for monetary damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts, which could adversely affect our business. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings could cause us to incur significant expenses, distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities, delay development of product candidates, subject us to significant uncertainties and harm our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their former employers.

​

Many of our employees were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies and our consultants and advisors may work for other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies in addition to us. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of these individuals’ former or concurrent employers or clients. We may also be subject to claims that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of our employees, consultants and advisors, even those related to one or more product candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

​

If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings could cause us to incur significant expenses, distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities, delay development of product candidates, subject us to significant uncertainties and harm our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

The patent protection and patent prosecution for some product candidates may be dependent on third parties.

​

While we normally seek to obtain the right to control prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of the patents relating to product candidates, there may be times when the filing and prosecution activities for patents and patent applications relating to product candidates are controlled by our licensors or collaboration partners. If any of our licensors or collaboration partners fail to prosecute, maintain and enforce such patents and patent applications in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by payment of all applicable fees for patents covering product candidates, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have licensed from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensors and their counsel that took place prior to the date upon which we assumed control over patent prosecution.

​

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

​

89

Table of Contents

We rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trial, and plan to rely on third parties to conduct any future preclinical studies and clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research and studies.

​

We do not have the ability to independently conduct all aspects of our preclinical studies or clinical trials ourselves. We utilize and depend upon third-party investigators and collaborators, such as medical institutions, CROs, clinical trial sites and CMOs, to conduct and support our preclinical studies and clinical trial under agreements with us and plan to continue to do so for future preclinical studies and any clinical trials we may initiate. These third parties have had and will continue to have a significant role in the conduct of our ongoing and anticipated preclinical studies and clinical trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data.

​

These third parties are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that any such third party will devote to our preclinical studies or our clinical trials. The third parties we rely on for these services may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting preclinical studies, clinical trials or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. Some of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. We also expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs, clinical trial sites and CMOs and we may not be able to do so on favorable terms, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements with, or replace or add any third parties, it would involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus, or involve a transition period, and may delay our drug development activities, as well as materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

​

Our heavy reliance on these third parties for such drug development activities will reduce our control over these activities. As a result, we will have less direct control over the conduct, timing and completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials and the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with GCP standards, regulations for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are reliable and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs or any clinical trial sites fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. There can be no assurance that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials substantially comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under current cGMP regulations and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of study subject, may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

​

There is no guarantee that any CROs, clinical trial investigators or other third parties on which we rely will devote adequate time and resources to our development activities or perform as contractually required. If any of these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, adhere to our clinical protocols or meet regulatory requirements, otherwise perform in a substandard manner, or terminate their engagements with us, the timelines for our development programs may be extended or delayed or our development activities may be

90

Table of Contents

suspended or terminated. If our clinical trial site terminates for any reason, we may experience the loss of follow-up information on subjects enrolled in such clinical trial unless we are able to transfer those subjects to another qualified clinical trial site, which may be difficult or impossible.

​

Accordingly, if these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, or if these third parties need to be replaced, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

​

We expect to continue to contract with third parties for the manufacture of product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials and ultimately for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quality and quantities of product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

​

We do not currently have the infrastructure or internal capability to manufacture supplies of product candidates for use in development and commercialization.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers for the production of product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials under the guidance of members of our organization, including for our phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion clinical trial for THE-630. We do not have long-term supply agreements, and we purchase our required drug product on a purchase order basis, which means that aside from any binding purchase orders we have from time to time, our supplier could cease supplying to us or change the terms on which it is willing to continue supplying to us at any time. Even if we are able to replace any raw materials or other materials with an alternative, such alternatives may cost more, result in lower yields or not be as suitable for our purposes. In addition, some of the materials that we use to manufacture product candidates are complex materials, which may be more difficult to substitute. In addition, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may result in disruptions to the operations or an extended shutdown of certain businesses, which could include certain of our third-party manufacturers. Current or future supply chain interruptions that could be exacerbated by global political tensions, such as the situation in Ukraine, could negatively impact our ability to further develop our product candidates or to manufacture supplies of product candidates for use in development and commercialization, which could negatively impact our timelines and prospects. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of any product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials, which could result in delays and additional regulatory submissions.

​

If we obtain marketing approval for any product candidates, given that our limited existing supply arrangements do not extend to commercial supply, we will need to establish one or more agreements with third parties to develop and scale up the drug manufacturing process. We may be unable to maintain or establish required agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Our product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. As a result, we may not obtain access to these facilities on a priority basis or at all. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

​

Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, they may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up or commercial activities. Reliance on third-party manufacturers also entails additional risks, including:

​

91

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

​

Our manufacturing process needs to comply with FDA regulations relating to the quality and reliability of such processes. Any failure to comply with relevant regulations could result in delays in or termination of our clinical programs and suspension or withdrawal of any regulatory approvals.

​

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain marketing approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we do not have control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we will need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, and those new facilities would need to be inspected and approved by FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority prior to commencing manufacturing, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market product candidates, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of product candidates or drugs and harm our business and results of operations.

​

92

Table of Contents

If our third-party manufacturers use hazardous materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

​

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical materials, by our third-party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

​

If we decide to establish collaborations, but are not able to establish those collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

​

Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. Although we have not entered into any collaborations to date, we may seek to selectively form collaborations to expand our capabilities, potentially accelerate research and development activities and provide for commercialization activities by third parties. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business.

​

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration depends, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of preclinical studies or clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing drugs, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of intellectual property and industry and market conditions generally. The potential collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. Further, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a collaboration or other alternative arrangements for product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view them as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

​

In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential collaborators. Even if we are successful in entering into a collaboration, the terms and conditions of that collaboration may restrict us from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators.

​

If and when we seek to enter into collaborations, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other research programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have

93

Table of Contents

sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

​

If conflicts arise between us and our collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.

​

If conflicts arise between any corporate or academic collaborators or strategic partners and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Collaborators or strategic partners may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the products or potential products that are the subject of these collaborations. Competing products, either developed by the collaborators or strategic partners or to which the collaborators or strategic partners have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for product candidates. Our collaborators or strategic partners may preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely, or fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts.

​

We may not realize the benefits of any acquisitions, in-license or other collaborations or strategic alliances that we enter into.

​

We have entered into the ARIAD License Agreement, and in the future we may seek and form strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into acquisitions or additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidate and any additional product candidates that we may develop.

​

These transactions can entail numerous operational and financial risks, including exposure to unknown liabilities, disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention in order to manage a collaboration or develop acquired products, product candidates or technologies, incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of equity securities to pay transaction consideration or costs, higher than expected collaboration, acquisition or integration costs, write-downs of assets or goodwill or impairment charges, increased amortization expenses, difficulty and cost in facilitating the collaboration or combining the operations and personnel of any acquired business, impairment of relationships with key suppliers, manufacturers or customers of any acquired business due to changes in management and ownership and the inability to retain key employees of any acquired business. We may agree to and be bound by negative covenants which may limit our development and commercial opportunities. As a result, if we enter into collaboration agreements, strategic partnerships or license our products, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business.

​

We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction or such other benefits that led us to enter into the arrangement. Failure to realize the benefits of any collaborations or strategic alliances may further cause us to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any planned sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we will need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop product candidates or bring them to market and generate product sales revenue, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

​

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

94

Table of Contents

​

The market price of our common stock has been, and will likely continue to be, volatile and may fluctuate substantially or may decline regardless of our operating performance and our stockholders may not be able to resell shares of common stock at or above the price paid for such shares.

​

Prior to the listing of our common stock, there was no market for shares of our common stock, and we cannot assure our stockholders that an active trading market for our shares will continue to develop or be sustained. Since our initial public offering, the market price of our common stock has experienced volatility. Our stockholders may not be able to resell those shares at or above the price paid for such shares. The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In addition, the stock markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many biotechnology companies. Stock prices of many biotechnology companies have fluctuated in a manner unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

​

95

Table of Contents

The price of our common stock could decline if there are substantial sales of our common stock, particularly sales by our directors, executive officers and significant stockholders, or if there is a large number of shares of our common stock available for sale and the market perceives that sales will occur. As of March 1, 2022, we had 38,702,650 shares of our common stock outstanding.

​

Substantially all of our outstanding shares of common stock issued prior to our initial public offering are currently restricted from resale as a result of securities laws or market standoff and lock-up agreements. Shares subject to market standoff and lock-up agreements will become available to be sold on April 5, 2022. Shares held by directors, executive officers and other affiliates will be subject to volume limitations under Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and various vesting agreements. Jefferies LLC and SVB Leerink LLC may, in their discretion and with or without notice, permit our stockholders to sell shares prior to the expiration of the restrictive provisions contained in those lock-up agreements. Sales of a substantial number of such shares upon expiration of the lock-up agreements, the perception that such sales may occur, or early release of these agreements, could cause our market price to fall or make it more difficult for our stockholders to sell common stock at a time and price that such stockholder deems appropriate.

​

Certain of our stockholders (including certain of our affiliates) have rights, subject to certain conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering approximately 25,475,905 shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or our stockholders, subject to market standoff and lockup agreements. Once we register these shares, they will be able to be sold freely in the public market upon issuance, subject to existing market standoff or lock-up agreements (including the lock-up agreements described above).

​

We also registered 9,494,003 shares of common stock that we have issued and may issue under our employee equity plans. Accordingly, these shares are available for sale in the open market, subject to Rule 144 volume limitations applicable to affiliates, and subject to any vesting restrictions and lock-up agreements applicable to these shares.

​

The market price of the shares of our common stock could decline as a result of the sale of a substantial number of shares in the public market or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell their shares.

​

We previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, which has been remediated. If we identify other material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements could be impaired, which could result in sanctions or other penalties that would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock may decline.

​

We previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. Although this material weakness was remediated as of December 31, 2021, we cannot assure you that we will not identify another material weakness in the future. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

​

Our remediation plan included enhancing our internal accounting resources by hiring additional qualified accounting and finance personnel to provide needed levels of expertise in our internal accounting function and to implement appropriate controls over the recognition of invoices. While we have remediated our previous material weakness, we cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, and actions we may take in the future, will be sufficient to prevent or avoid potential future material weaknesses. We expect to incur additional costs to remediate these control deficiencies, though there can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful or avoid potential future material weaknesses.

​

96

Table of Contents

We, and our independent registered public accounting firm, were not required to perform an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021 or 2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Accordingly, we cannot assure stockholders that we have identified all, or that we will not in the future have additional, material weaknesses. A material weakness may be identified when we report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for purposes of our attestation when required by reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, or Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

If we are unable to successfully remediate any future material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, or if we identify any additional material weaknesses, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports in addition to applicable stock exchange listing requirements, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting, and our stock price may decline as a result. We also could become subject to investigations by the Nasdaq Global Select Market, or Nasdaq, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, or other regulatory authorities.

​

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal controls, our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements could be impaired, which could result in sanctions or other penalties that would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock may decline.

​

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of Nasdaq. Commencing with our fiscal year ending December 31, 2022, we must perform system and process design evaluation and testing of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Form 10-K filing for that year, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, including through hiring additional financial and accounting personnel, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. This will require that we incur substantial additional professional fees and internal costs to expand our accounting and finance functions and that we expend significant management efforts.

​

While we have remedied our previous material weakness, we may in the future discover additional weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

​

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, including equivalent foreign authorities.

​

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act and a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting

97

Table of Contents

requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

​

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, as amended, or the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of some of the exemptions from reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:

​

​

​

​

​

​

In addition, as an emerging growth company, the JOBS Act allows us to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements are made applicable to private companies. We have elected to use this extended transition period under the JOBS Act. As a result, our financial statements may not be comparable to the financial statements of issuers who are required to comply with the effective dates for new or revised accounting standards that are applicable to public companies, which may make comparison of our financials to those of other public companies more difficult.

​

We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) December 31, 2026, the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering in October 2021, (2) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, (3) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means, among other things, the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (4) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

​

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” as defined in the Exchange Act, which would allow us to continue to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements.

​

We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

​

We do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future.

​

We have never declared nor paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance the operation and expansion of our business, and we do not expect to declare or pay any

98

Table of Contents

dividends in the foreseeable future. Consequently, stockholders must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investment.

​

The concentration of our stock ownership will likely limit our stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters, including the ability to influence the outcome of director elections and other matters requiring stockholder approval.

​

As of March 1, 2022, our executive officers, directors and the holders of more than 5% of our outstanding capital stock, in the aggregate, hold voting power over approximately 58% of our outstanding common stock. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, will have significant influence over all matters that require approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Corporate actions might be taken even if other stockholders oppose them. This concentration of ownership might also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of our company that other stockholders may view as beneficial.

​

Delaware law and provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make a merger, tender offer or proxy contest difficult, thereby depressing the trading price of our common stock.

​

Our status as a Delaware corporation and the anti-takeover provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control by prohibiting us from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder for a period of three years after the person becomes an interested stockholder, even if a change of control would be beneficial to our existing stockholders. In addition, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that may make the acquisition of our company more difficult, including the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

99

Table of Contents

​

In addition, as a Delaware corporation, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us for a certain period of time. A Delaware corporation may opt out of this provision by express provision in its original certificate of incorporation or by amendment to its certificate of incorporation or bylaws approved by its stockholders. However, we have not opted out of this provision.

​

These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirors to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current board of directors, including delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. The existence of these provisions could negatively affect the price of our common stock and limit opportunities for our stockholders to realize value in a corporate transaction.

​

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and federal court within the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that our stockholders may initiate, which could limit a stockholder’s ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

​

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that, subject to limited exceptions, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and federal court within the State of Delaware will be exclusive forums for any:

​

​

​

​

​

This choice of forum provision does not apply to actions brought to enforce a duty or liability created under the Exchange Act. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation also provides that the federal district courts of the United States are the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. We intend for this provision to apply to any complaints asserting a cause of action under the Securities Act despite the fact that Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for the federal and state courts over all actions brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. There is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such a provision with respect to claims under the Securities Act, and our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation described above.

​

These choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs

100

Table of Contents

associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

​

General Risks

​

We could be subject to securities class action litigation.

​

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

​

The amount of our future losses is uncertain and our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly, which will make our future results difficult to predict and may cause our results to fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

​

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The cumulative effects of these factors could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of

101

Table of Contents

industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if the forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated guidance we may provide.

​

Requirements associated with being a public company will increase our costs significantly, as well as divert significant company resources and management attention.

​

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the other rules and regulations of the SEC relating to public companies and the rules of Nasdaq. Compliance with the various reporting and other requirements applicable to public companies requires considerable time and attention of management. We cannot assure our stockholders that we will satisfy our obligations as a public company on a timely basis.

​

In addition, as a public company, it may be more difficult or more costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. The impact of these events could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified personnel to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

​

If securities or industry analysts do not continue to publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

​

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If securities or industry analysts cease coverage of us, or only very few such analysts cover us, the trading price for our common stock would be negatively affected. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our common stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our common stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which might cause our common stock price and trading volume to decline.

​

Data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing and cross-border transfer of personal information.

​

We are, and may increasingly become, subject to various laws and regulations, as well as contractual obligations and mandatory industry standards relating to privacy and security in the jurisdictions in which we operate. The regulatory environment related to data privacy and security is increasingly rigorous, with new and constantly changing requirements applicable to our business, and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. These laws and regulations may be interpreted and applied differently over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it is possible that they will be interpreted and applied in ways that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

​

In the United States, various federal and state regulators, including governmental agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, have adopted, or are considering adopting, laws and regulations concerning personal information and data security. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, all of which may complicate compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or the CCPA, which increases privacy rights for California residents and imposes obligations on companies that process their personal information and meet certain revenue or volume processing thresholds, came into effect on January 1, 2020, and was further amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, on November 3, 2020. Among other things, the CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California residents and provide such residents new data protection and privacy rights, including the ability to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. The

102

Table of Contents

CPRA significantly modifies the CCPA by expanding residents’ rights with respect to certain personal information and creates a new state agency to oversee implementation and enforcement efforts. Many of the CPRA’s provisions will become effective on January 1, 2023. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for certain data breaches. This private right of action may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation, including class action litigation. In addition, laws in all 50 U.S. states require businesses to provide notice to individuals if certain of their personal information has been disclosed as a result of a qualifying data breach.

​

Moreover, the CCPA has prompted a number of proposals for new federal and state-level privacy legislation. State laws and regulations are not necessarily preempted by federal laws and regulations, such as HIPAA, particularly if a state affords greater protection to individuals than federal law. Where state laws are more protective, we have to comply with the stricter provisions. In addition to fines and penalties imposed upon violators, some of these state laws also afford private rights of action to individuals who believe their personal information has been misused. The interplay of federal and state laws may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us and data we receive, use and share, potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability. Legal requirements relating to the collection, storage, handling, and transfer of personal information and personal data continue to evolve and may result in increased public scrutiny and escalating levels of enforcement, sanctions and increased costs of compliance. This legislation may add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies.

​

Internationally, laws, regulations and standards in many jurisdictions apply broadly to the collection, use, retention, security, disclosure, transfer, marketing or other processing of personal data. For example, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018, is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data. Specifically, the GDPR greatly increased the European’s Commission’s jurisdictional reach of its data privacy and security laws and introduced a broad array of requirements for handling personal data, including, for example, requirements to establish a legal basis for processing, higher standards for obtaining consent from individuals to process their personal data, more robust disclosures to individuals, a strengthened individual data rights regime, requirements to implement safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data that requires the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards, shortened timelines for data breach notifications to appropriate data protection authorities or data subjects, limitations on retention and secondary use of information, increased requirements pertaining to health data and obligations to take certain measures when engaging third party processors in connection with the processing of personal data. EU member states are tasked under the GDPR to enact, and have enacted, certain implementing legislation that adds to and/or further interprets the GDPR requirements and potentially extends our obligations and potential liability for failing to meet such obligations. The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the EU member states governing the processing of personal data, impose strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, use, retain, disclose, transfer and otherwise process personal data. In particular, the GDPR also imposes strict obligations, restrictions and rules concerning the rights of individuals to whom the personal data relates, the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Economic Area, including the United States, security breach notifications and the security and confidentiality of personal data. The GDPR permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater, and other administrative penalties. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, data privacy and security laws that are substantially similar to the

103

Table of Contents

GDPR are in effect in the United Kingdom, which carry similar risks and authorize similar fines for certain violations.

​

Certain legal regimes outside of the United States, including in the United Kingdom and under the GDPR, prohibit the transfer of personal data to the United States unless certain measures are in place, including, for example, executing Standard Contractual Clauses, or historically, relying on the receiving entity’s certification under the EU-US and/or Swiss-US Privacy Shield Frameworks, or, collectively, the Privacy Shield Frameworks. The Privacy Shield Frameworks were invalidated, and the adequacy of Standard Contractual Clauses is now in question, following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s July 2020 decision in the so-called Schrems II case (Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (Case C-311/18)). There is no guarantee that any transfer mechanism upon which we rely will be deemed to be valid by the relevant legal authorities, or that mechanisms that are currently deemed to be valid will remain valid in the future. This uncertainty, and its eventual resolution, may increase our costs of compliance, impede our ability to transfer data and conduct our business and harm our business or results of operations.

​

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with U.S. or international laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection, and data security could result in governmental investigations, proceedings and enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation or adverse publicity, harm to our reputation, and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may contractually limit our ability to use and disclose the information or impose other obligations or restrictions in connection with our use, retention and other processing of information, and we may otherwise face contractual restrictions applicable to our use, retention, and other processing of information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

​

Comprehensive tax reform legislation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

​

The rules dealing with United States federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, and the United States Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, the TCJA was enacted in 2017 and made significant changes to corporate taxation, including the reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, the limitation of the tax deduction for net interest expense to 30% of adjusted taxable income (except for certain small businesses), the limitation of the deduction for net operating losses from taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 to 80% of current year taxable income and the elimination of net operating loss carrybacks generated in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017 (though any such net operating losses may be carried forward indefinitely), and the modification or repeal of many business deductions and credits, including a reduction of the business tax credit for certain clinical testing expenses incurred in the testing of certain drugs for rare diseases or conditions generally referred to as “orphan drugs.”

​

Additionally, on March 27, 2020, former President Trump signed into law the CARES Act, which, among other things, suspends the 80% limitation on the deduction for net operating losses in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2021, permits a 5-year carryback of net operating losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2021, and generally caps the limitation on the deduction for net interest expense at 50% of adjusted taxable income for taxable years beginning in 2019 and 2020.

​

104

Table of Contents

The recent presidential and congressional elections in the United States could also result in significant changes in, and uncertainty with respect to, tax legislation, regulation and government policy directly affecting us and our business. For example, the United States government may enact significant changes to the taxation of business entities including, among others, a permanent increase in the corporate income tax rate, an increase in the tax rate applicable to the global intangible low-taxed income and elimination of certain exemptions, and the imposition of minimum taxes or surtaxes on certain types of income. The likelihood of these changes being enacted or implemented is unclear.

​

It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, new tax laws may be enacted, or regulations and rulings may be promulgated or issued under existing or new tax laws, which could result in an increase in our or our stockholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law or in the interpretation thereof.

​

​

105

Table of Contents

106

Table of Contents

​

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

​

The following sets forth information regarding all unregistered securities sold by us during the year ended December 31, 2021. No underwriters were involved in the foregoing issuances of securities.

​

​

​

​

The offers, sales and issuances of the securities described in paragraph (a) above were exempt from registration under the Securities Act under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act or Regulation D promulgated thereunder as transactions by an issuer not involving a public offering. Each of the recipients of securities in these transactions was an accredited person and had adequate access, through employment, business or other relationships, to information about the registrant.

​

The offers, sales and issuances of the securities described in paragraphs (b) and (c) above were exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, under either (1) Rule 701 in that the transactions were under compensatory benefit plans and contracts relating to compensation as provided under Rule 701 or (2) Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act as transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.

​

Use of Proceeds from Initial Public Offering

​

On October 12, 2021, we closed the IPO, in which we sold 10,000,200 shares of our common stock at a public offering price of $16.00 per share. On October 25, 2021, the Underwriters (as defined below) exercised their option to purchase an additional 1,171,990 shares of our common stock at the public offering price of $16.00 per share. After deducting underwriting discounts, commissions and offering expenses, the aggregate net offering proceeds raised in the IPO were approximately $162.5 million. All of the shares issued and sold in the IPO were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-259549), which was declared effective by the SEC on October 6, 2021, and a Registration Statement on Form S-1 MEF (File No. 333-260102) filed pursuant to Rule 462(b) of the Securities Act. No payments for such offering expenses were made directly or indirectly to (i) any of our officers or directors or their associates, (ii) any persons owning 10% or more of any class of our equity securities or (iii) any of our affiliates.

Jefferies LLC, SVB Leerink LLC and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. acted as joint book-running managers, and Wedbush Securities Inc. acted as lead manager for the offering, or collectively, the Underwriters.

There has been no material change in the planned use of proceeds from our IPO from that described in the final prospectus filed with the SEC on October 7, 2021.

​

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchases

​

107

Table of Contents

None.

​

​

ITEM 6. Reserved

​

108

Table of Contents

In addition, we are evaluating several potential targets and intend to select one or more as our next program(s) in 2022.

Since our inception in December 2017, our operations have focused on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property portfolio and performing research and development activities, including with respect to our pan-KIT inhibitor and our epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, inhibitor development programs. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale and issuance of approximately $282.1 million of our Preferred Stock and common stock, including the net proceeds from the underwriters’ partial exercise of their option to purchase additional shares in our IPO. Upon the closing of the IPO, each outstanding share of our Preferred Stock automatically converted into one share of common stock.

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception. Our ability to generate product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more product candidates. Our net losses for years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 were $27.3 million and $12.0 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $61.6 million. We expect to continue to incur significant and increasing losses for the foreseeable future. We expect that our expenses and capital requirements will increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly if and as we:

Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from period to period, depending on the timing of expenditures related to our research and development activities.

We will not generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate and do not enter into a third-party commercialization partnership, we expect to incur significant expenses related to developing our commercialization capability to support product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution activities.

As a result, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect

109

Table of Contents

to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings or other capital sources, which could include collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements. We may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such arrangements when needed, on favorable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital or enter into such agreements as, and when, needed, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition, including requiring us to have to delay, reduce or eliminate product development or future commercialization efforts.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with development of targeted oncology therapies, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Even if we are able to generate product sales, we may not become profitable. We will need to generate significant revenue to achieve profitability, and we may never do so. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce or terminate our operations.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $244.7 million. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents, will be sufficient to fund our operations and capital expenses into the second half of 2024. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner than we expect. See section titled “—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

Impact of COVID-19 on Our Business

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, and we will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation. The extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business, operations and development timelines and plans remains uncertain, and will depend on certain developments, including the duration and spread of the outbreak and its impact on our CMOs, CROs, and other third parties with whom we do business, as well as its impact on regulatory authorities and our key scientific and management personnel. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar health epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. To the extent possible, we are conducting business as usual. We will continue to actively monitor the rapidly evolving situation related to COVID-19 and may take further actions that alter our operations, including those that may be required by federal, state or local authorities, or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees and other third parties with whom we do business. At this point, the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic may affect our business, operations and development timelines and plans, including the resulting impact on our expenditures and capital needs, remains uncertain and is subject to change.

Initial Public Offering

On October 6, 2021, our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-259549) relating to our IPO was declared effective by the SEC, and we filed a Registration Statement on Form S-1 MEF (File No. 333-260102) pursuant to Rule 462(b) of the Securities Act. Pursuant to the Registration Statements and in connection with the IPO, we issued and sold an aggregate of 11,172,190 shares of common stock (inclusive of 1,171,990 shares pursuant to the partial exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares) at a price of $16.00 per share for aggregate cash proceeds of $162.5 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering costs payable by us. Upon closing the IPO, all outstanding shares of our Preferred Stock automatically converted into an aggregate of 25,475,905 shares of common stock.

110

Table of Contents

parties, we may generate revenue in the future from a combination of product sales or payments from such collaboration or license agreements.

Operating Expenses

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses account for a significant portion of our operating expenses and consist primarily of costs incurred in connection with the discovery and preclinical development of our potential development candidates, and include:

We expense research and development costs as incurred. We recognize external development costs based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using information provided to us by our vendors or our estimate of the level of service that has been performed at each reporting date. Payments for these external development activities are based on the terms of the individual agreements, which may differ from the pattern of costs incurred, and are reflected in our consolidated financial statements as prepaid expenses or accrued expenses. Nonrefundable advance payments for goods or services to be received in the future for use in research and development activities are deferred and capitalized, even when there is no alternative future use for the research and development. The capitalized amounts are expensed as the related goods are delivered or the services are performed.

A significant portion of our research and development costs have been external costs, which we track after a clinical product candidate has been identified. We utilize third party contractors for our research and development activities and CMOs for our manufacturing activities and we do not have our own laboratory or manufacturing facilities. Therefore, we have no material facilities expenses attributed to research and development. Our internal research and development costs are primarily personnel-related costs and other indirect costs.

Research and development activities are central to our business model. We expect that our research and development expenses will continue to increase for the foreseeable future as we advance a clinical trial for our product candidate, THE-630, and continue to discover and develop additional product candidates, expand our headcount and maintain, expand and enforce our intellectual property portfolio. If any product candidates enter into later stages of clinical development, they will generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. There are numerous factors associated with the successful development and commercialization of any product candidates we may develop in the future, including future trial design and various regulatory requirements, many of which cannot be determined with accuracy at this time based on our stage of development. Additionally, future commercial and regulatory factors beyond our control will impact our clinical development program and plans.

The successful development of our current product candidate, THE-630, or any product candidates we may develop in the future is highly uncertain. Therefore, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and estimated costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the development and commercialization

111

Table of Contents

of THE-630 and any other product candidates we may develop. We are also unable to predict when, if ever, material net cash inflows will commence from the sale of any current or future product candidate, if approved. This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, including the uncertainty of:

Any changes in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of THE-630 or any future product candidates in preclinical and clinical development could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of these product candidates. For example, if the FDA or another regulatory authority were to delay our planned start of clinical trials or require us to conduct clinical trials or other testing beyond those that we currently expect, or if we experience significant delays in enrollment in any clinical trials following the FDA’s acceptance and clearance of an IND application, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time to complete clinical development than we currently expect. We may never obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates that we develop.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel-related expenses, including salaries, benefits, and stock-based compensation expenses for personnel in executive, finance, accounting, human resources and other administrative functions. Other significant general and administrative expenses include legal fees relating to patent, intellectual property and corporate matters, and fees paid for accounting, consulting and other professional services, and expenses for rent, insurance and other operating costs.

112

Table of Contents

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as our business expands to support our continued research and development activities, including any future clinical trials. These increases will likely include increased costs related to the hiring of additional personnel and fees to outside consultants, among other expenses. We also anticipate increased expenses associated with being a public company, including costs for audit, legal, regulatory and tax-related services related to compliance with the rules and regulations of the SEC, listing standards applicable to companies listed on a national securities exchange, director and officer insurance premiums and investor relations costs. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for our current product candidate or any product candidates we may develop in the future and do not enter into a third-party commercialization collaboration, we expect to incur significant expenses related to building a sales and marketing team to support product sales, marketing and distribution activities.

Total Other Income (Expense), Net

Change in Fair Value of Preferred Stock Tranche Rights and Anti-dilution Right

Total other income (expense), net includes fluctuations in the fair value of our Preferred Stock tranche rights and our anti-dilution right. The Preferred Stock tranche rights, or the Tranche Rights, relate to our obligation to issue, and investors’ obligation to purchase in three subsequent tranches, additional shares of our Series A Preferred Stock following the initial closing of our Series A Preferred Stock financing in June 2018. We issued shares of our Series A Preferred Stock in January 2020 and July 2020 pursuant to these rights. The final tranche was cancelled in December 2020 upon termination of the purchase agreement entered into in connection with the purchase and sale of the Series A Preferred Stock (as amended and restated), or the Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement. The Tranche Rights were classified as a liability on our consolidated balance sheet and initially recorded at fair value. The Tranche Rights were subsequently revalued until the tranches were settled, with changes in fair value for each reporting period recognized in other income (expense), net. Upon the purchase of the Tranche Right shares, the fair value of the related Tranche Right was recognized as Series A Preferred Stock. This obligation was fully satisfied in December 2020 when the Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement was terminated.

The anti-dilution right, or Anti-dilution Right, relates to our obligation to issue additional shares of Series A Preferred Stock to ARIAD for no consideration upon the achievement of certain milestones set forth in the Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement. In accordance with the Anti-dilution Right, we issued ARIAD additional shares of Series A Preferred Stock in January 2020 and July 2020. We determined that the Anti-dilution Right was a freestanding financial instrument, and it was classified as an asset or liability on our consolidated balance sheets and initially recorded at fair value. The Anti-dilution Right was subsequently revalued until anti-dilution shares were issued or the Anti-dilution Right was terminated, with changes in fair value for each reporting period recognized in other income (expense), net. Upon issuance of the Anti-dilution shares, the fair value of the Anti-dilution Right was recognized as Series A Preferred Stock. This Anti-dilution Right was fully satisfied as of the termination of the Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement in December 2020.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense), net primarily consists of interest income, which is earned on cash equivalents that generate interest on a monthly basis, and state and franchise taxes.

113

Table of Contents