OCULAR THERAPEUTIX, INC [OCUL] Filings

Table of Contents

​

​

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

or

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

For the transition period from                     to                      

Commission file number 001-36554

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

(781) 357-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

​

​

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 “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

​

​

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

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

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

As of June 30, 2023, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $405.7 million. The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s class of common stock, as of March 6, 2024: 148,627,439.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Annual Report incorporates by reference information from the definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “target,” “potential,” “goals,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “continue” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, among other things, statements about:

Table of Contents

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the section captioned “Risk Factors” section, that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures, licensing agreements or investments we may make.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We do not assume, and we expressly disclaim, any obligation or undertaking to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties. All of the market data used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K involves a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such data. While we believe that the information from these industry publications, surveys and studies is reliable, we have not independently verified such data. The industry in which we operate is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of important factors, including those described in the section titled “Risk Factors.”

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and service marks and to those belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents incorporated by reference herein may appear without the ^® or ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other companies' trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies. AXPAXLI is a trade name which we use to refer to our OTX-TKI product candidate, and PAXTRAVA is a trade name which we use to refer to our OTX-TIC product candidate. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, has not approved either AXPAXLI or PAXTRAVA as product names.

Table of Contents

Summary of Risks Related to our Business

Our business, financial condition, results of operations, future growth prospects and common stock price are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of before making an investment decision, as more fully described under the heading “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

Table of Contents

​

Table of Contents

PART I

We are a biopharmaceutical company committed to enhancing people’s vision and quality of life through the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye, with a specific focus on retinal disease. Our program for retinal disease is led by AXPAXLI (axitinib intravitreal implant, also known as OTX-TKI), which is based on our ELUTYX proprietary bioresorbable hydrogel-based formulation technology. We are currently conducting a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD, which we refer to as the SOL-1 trial, and a Phase 1 clinical trial for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Our clinical portfolio also includes PAXTRAVA (travoprost intracameral implant, also known as OTX-TIC), which is currently in Phase 2 clinical development for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma, or OAG, or ocular hypertension, or OHT.

​

Our expertise in the formulation, development and commercialization of innovative therapies and our ELUTYX platform supported the development and launch of our first commercial drug product, DEXTENZA, a corticosteroid approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery and ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. We are also developing two other clinical-stage assets, OTX-DED (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert) for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, and OTX-CSI (cyclosporine intracanalicular insert) for the chronic treatment of dry eye disease, which we collectively refer to as our Dry Eye Programs, and several preclinical programs.

​

Our current products and product candidates in clinical development generally incorporate therapeutic agents that have previously received regulatory approval from the FDA, including small molecules, into ELUTYX, with the goal of providing local programmed release to tailor the duration and amount of the therapeutic agent to be delivered to the eye. We believe that our local programmed-release drug delivery technology has the potential to enable the treatment of conditions and diseases of both the front and the back of the eye and can be administered through a range of ocular modalities including intravitreal implants, intracameral implants, and intracanalicular inserts.

The hydrogel technology that underpins ELUTYX has been used in the human body since 1992 and has demonstrated its safety and effectiveness in over five million patients across five FDA-approved devices since that time. Our own approved product DEXTENZA, the first and only drug-eluting intracanalicular insert approved by the FDA, has been used in nearly 400,000 eyes since launch with reported adverse events in less than 1 in 10,000 patients. As a result, we believe that the ELUTYX technology is well tolerated.

We believe the ELUTYX technology can provide delivery solutions for durable therapies for wet AMD, non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, or NPDR, and other diseases and conditions of the eye. The only factors that regulate the bioresorption of our ELUTYX polymer are temperature and pH of the aqueous environment. As body temperature and pH of the human aqueous environment are within a typical range for each human, and since water levels in the vitreous humor are more than sufficient to saturate our polymer matrix, we believe we can program our products and product candidates so that the polymer will be intact long-enough to deliver the active pharmaceutical ingredient and then be fully bio-resorbed when re-dosing is required. That ELUTYX does not create an acidic microenvironment, is easily eliminated from the vitreous, leaving behind no harmful byproducts, and has soft gel properties provides further support for the ELUTYX safety profile.

We currently focus on some of the largest markets in ophthalmology. According to the Market Scope 2022-2023 reports, our product candidates seek to address select indications within the retina, glaucoma, and dry eye disease areas of ophthalmology. These areas, in the aggregate, account for approximately $25.6 billion in global annual sales.

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the status of our key product candidates and development programs, as well as DEXTENZA. We hold worldwide exclusive commercial rights to the core technology underlying all of our product candidates in development and have not granted commercial rights to any marketing partners other than a license agreement and collaboration with AffaMed Therapeutics Limited, or AffaMed, for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA and PAXTRAVA in the geographies agreed to between the parties.

PIPELINE AT A GLANCE

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to advance our pipeline of clinical assets, focusing specifically on our programs for wet AMD and NPDR, while we continue to build upon our experience in commercializing ophthalmology products. The key tactics of our strategy are:

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Limitations of Current Drug Delivery in Ophthalmology

Eye Drops

Eye drops are widely used to deliver medications directly to the ocular surface and to intraocular tissue in the front of the eye. Eye drops are administrable by the patient or care provider, inexpensive to produce and treat the local tissue. However, eye drops have significant limitations, especially when used for chronic diseases or when requiring frequent administration, including:

As a result of these limitations, eye drops are often suboptimal as a therapeutic option for the treatment of many diseases and conditions of the front of the eye.

Back-of-the-Eye Injections

An intravitreal injection is a procedure to place a medication directly into the space in the back of the eye called the vitreous cavity, which is filled with a jelly-like fluid called the vitreous humor gel. The procedure is usually performed by a trained retina specialist in the office setting. Intravitreal injections are used to administer medications to treat a variety of chronic conditions; wet AMD, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic retinal edema, or DME, and retinal vein occlusion, or RVO, are among the most common conditions treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGFs) drugs. Anti-VEGF drugs and steroids help to reduce fluid leakage associated with these disorders.

While anti-VEGF treatment regimens can be very effective therapies, there are a number of significant drawbacks, driven primarily by the frequency of injections that typically range from every six to eight weeks. We refer to the number of injections a patient has over a given time period as the treatment burden of the particular treatment. The actual injection at the time of administration is uncomfortable for patients and can be a deterrent in terms of compliance. Then there is the burden to both patients and their caregivers of regular office visits. These patients may not be mobile enough to travel to the office on their own and therefore require not only the assistance of a caregiver but also transportation to and from the office. These patients may also be younger, part of the active workforce and therefore unwilling or unable to take personal time off to receive frequent injections. Furthermore, injecting high doses of drug to the back of the eye every four to six weeks can result in the macula constantly alternating between a thicker and a thinner state, which may lead to fibrosis presenting as scarring and atrophy. Finally, while intravitreal injections are

Table of Contents

typically safe, there is the potential risk of endophthalmitis (infection in the eye), inflammation, bleeding into the vitreous gel and retinal detachment that comes with injections.

As a result of these limitations, there is a significant unmet need for technologies that will allow for a longer duration of effect and an overall reduced number of injections.

The Ocular Therapeutix Approach

Our Hydrogel-Based Formulation Technology ELUTYX

We apply our expertise with ELUTYX to the development of products for local programmed-release of known, FDA-approved therapeutic agents for a variety of ophthalmic diseases and conditions and to ophthalmic wound closure.

ELUTYX is based on the use of a proprietary form of PEG. Our technical capabilities include a deep understanding of the polymer chemistry of PEG-based hydrogels and the design of the highly specialized manufacturing processes required to achieve a reliable, preservative-free and pure product. We tailor the hydrogel to act as a vehicle for local programmed-release drug delivery to the eye and as an ocular tissue sealant.

We create our hydrogels by cross-linking PEG molecules to form a network that resembles a three-dimensional mesh on a molecular level. Our PEG molecules are branched, with four to eight branches or arms. Each arm bears a reactive site on its end. Our cross-linking chemistry uses a second molecule with four arms, bearing complimentary reactive sites on each end, such that when combined with the PEG molecules, a network spontaneously forms. When swollen with water, this molecular network forms a hydrogel. We design these hydrogels to slowly degrade in the presence of water, a process called hydrolysis, by inserting a biodegradable linkage between the PEG molecule and the cross-linked molecule. By appropriately selecting the number of arms of the PEG molecule and the biodegradable linkage, we can design hydrogels with varying mechanical properties and bioresorption rates. Because the body has an abundance of water at a constant temperature and pH level, hydrolysis provides a predictable and reproducible degradation rate. Our technology enables us to make hydrogels that can bioresorb over days, weeks or months.

​

We select the active pharmaceutical ingredients for our local programmed-release drug delivery product candidates based on criteria we have developed through our extensive experience with hydrogel-based technologies. We consider the following selection criteria:

We believe our current and future intracanalicular insert, intracameral implant and intravitreal implant products and product candidates may offer a range of favorable attributes as compared to eye drops and immediate release back-of-the-eye injections, including:

Table of Contents

Intracanalicular Inserts

Our intracanalicular inserts, including DEXTENZA, OTX-DED, and OTX-CSI, are designed to be inserted into the patient’s punctum by a healthcare professional and to release drug to the surface of the eye to address diseases including ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery, ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis, and dry eye disease.

Our intracanalicular inserts utilize our proprietary hydrogel-based formulation technology and are embedded with an active drug. Following insertion through the punctum, our inserts swell in tear fluid to fill the vertical canaliculus, which secures the inserts in place. Over time, the inserts liquefy and are cleared through the nasolacrimal duct. If necessary due to excessive tearing, discomfort or improper placement, a healthcare professional can remove an intracanalicular insert by a process of pushing the soft insert back through the punctum.

Intracameral Implants

We are engaged in the clinical development of our hydrogel administered via intracameral injection to address glaucoma. Intracameral implants refer to biodegradable or bioresorbable implants placed into the anterior chamber or front of the eye for the treatment of ocular conditions. The implants are designed to be held in place by currents and gravity present in the anterior chamber of an eye. In the case of PAXTRAVA, the implant is designed to infuse with liquid, settle into the inferior angle of the eye and demonstrate little to no movement. The implants are preferably polymeric, biodegradable and provide sustained release of at least one therapeutic agent to both the trabecular meshwork and associated ocular tissue and the fluids within the anterior chamber of an eye.

​

Intravitreal Implants

We are engaged in the clinical development of our hydrogel administered via intravitreal injection to address the large and growing markets for diseases and conditions of the back of the eye. Our intravitreal implant product candidates, such as AXPAXLI, consist of a PEG-based hydrogel suspension, which contains embedded micronized particles of active drug. We design the intravitreal implant to be injected and retained in the vitreous humor to provide local programmed-release intravitreal delivery of anti-VEGF compounds.

Table of Contents

Clinical Portfolio

​

Retinal Diseases

Age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, and diabetic retinopathy are the most common retinal diseases, affecting approximately 212.0 million and 146.4 million, respectively, worldwide, according to the Market Scope 2023 Retinal Pharmaceuticals Market Report. In the United States, Market Scope estimates that there are approximately 17.9 million suffering from some form of AMD.

Wet Aged-Related Macular Degeneration (Wet AMD)

Wet AMD is a serious disease of the central portion of the retina, known as the macula, an oval-shaped pigmented area that is responsible for detailed central vision and color perception. Wet AMD is characterized by abnormal new blood vessel formation, referred to as neovascularization, which results in blood vessel leakage and retinal distortion. If untreated, neovascularization in wet AMD patients typically results in formation of a scar under the macular region of the retina. The current standard of care for wet AMD is treatment with drugs that target VEGF, one of several proteins involved in neovascularization.

Wet AMD is the most common cause of visual impairment among elderly patients in developed countries. According to the Market Scope 2023 Retinal Pharmaceuticals Market Report, there are approximately 1.6 million people in the United States who suffer from wet AMD. This population is expected to grow at a 3.5% compound annual growth rate through 2028.

Diabetic Retinopathy (DR)

DR is a progressive condition in which chronically elevated levels of blood glucose and depleted levels of oxygen damage the tiny blood vessels in the retina. DR is among the most common microvascular complications of diabetes, making diabetes the leading cause of new cases of blindness in adults. DR can take time to develop. NPDR, sometimes called background retinopathy, is usually mild and may go unnoticed. Proliferative DR is the most serious stage of the disease and develops when areas of the retina are starved for nourishment and oxygen, triggering the proliferation of new blood vessels via secretions of VEGFs. The current standard of care for DR at the non-proliferative stage is watchful waiting, with the use of anti-VEGFs when the disease has progressed to the proliferative stage.

It is estimated that there were 8.6 million cases of DR in the United States in 2023 according to the Market Scope 2023 Retinal Pharmaceuticals Market Report, of which 3.4 million cases were moderate to severe NPDR, growing at an approximately 1.8% compound annual growth rate through 2028. Overall, there are an estimated 146.4 million cases of DR globally, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 3.1%.

Market Data

The global market for retinal disease inclusive of wet AMD and DR was approximately $16.5 billion in 2023 and is estimated to grow at approximately 6.1% per year through 2028 according to Market Scope. The U.S. market accounted for approximately 58% of the global market or $9.5 billion in 2023 and is expected to grow at approximately 5.6% through 2028.

The anti-VEGF market for the treatment of wet AMD consists predominantly of three drugs that are approved for marketing and primarily prescribed for the treatment of wet AMD: Eylea, marketed in the United States by Regeneron; Lucentis, marketed in the United States by Genentech; and Vabysmo, launched in 2022 and marketed in the United States by Genentech. Bevacizumab, also known as Avastin, an anti-VEGF therapy approved for the treatment of certain cancers, is also used off-label in ophthalmology.

​

Table of Contents

Retinal Programs

​

AXPAXLI (axitinib intravitreal implant)

​

Our product candidate AXPAXLI is a preformed, bioresorbable hydrogel fiber implant based on our ELUTYX technology incorporating axitinib, a small molecule TKI with anti-angiogenic properties. AXPAXLI is delivered by intravitreal injection and is designed for a duration of six months or longer. We are conducting the SOL-1 trial to evaluate AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD in the United States, Argentina, and several other countries. Subject to agreement with the FDA, we intend to commence screening of the SOL-2 trial by the first quarter of 2025. We have also conducted a Phase 1 clinical trial in Australia and a Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States to evaluate AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD. We are also conducting the HELIOS trial in the United States to evaluate AXPAXLI for the treatment of NPDR. Subject to favorable topline data from the HELIOS trial and agreement with the FDA, we intend to commence a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of AXAPXLI for the treatment of NPDR as a next step of clinical development.

​

We believe axitinib is well suited for use with our platform given its high potency, multi-target capability, and compatibility with a hydrogel vehicle. In the absence of a sophisticated drug delivery system, TKIs have been difficult to deliver to the eye for acceptable time frames at therapeutic levels without causing local and systemic toxicity due to low drug solubility and very short half-lives in solution. We believe our local programmed-release drug delivery technology gives us potential advantages in this regard. Our initial implants have delivered anti-VEGF compounds in vitro over a targeted nine-to-twelve-month period, which we believe could make it possible to reduce patients’ treatment burden by reducing the frequency of the current monthly or bi-monthly intravitreal injection regimen for wet AMD.

​

We conducted the two Phase 1 trials of AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD with different formulations of axitinib. We are conducting the SOL-1 trial, and intend to conduct the SOL-2 trial and any pivotal trials for the treatment of NPDR, with a single 450 µg axitinib implant formulation of AXPAXLI, which is a different formulation than we used in either of the two Phase 1 trials.

​

Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration (wet AMD)

​

The SOL-1 Trial

​

We initiated the SOL-1 trial, our first pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD, in September 2023 with the activation of the trial’s first clinical site. The SOL-1 trial is designed as a prospective, multi-center, randomized, parallel-group trial that will be run primarily at U.S. sites, as well as sites in Argentina and several other countries. The SOL-1 trial is designed as a superiority trial comparing a single optimized implant of AXPAXLI with a drug load of 450 µg of a more soluble form of axitinib to a single injection of aflibercept and assessing the safety and efficacy of AXPAXLI in subjects with wet AMD by measuring Best Corrected Visual Accuity, or BCVA, and central subfield thickness, or CSFT.

​

We plan to enroll approximately 300 evaluable wet AMD subjects who are treatment naïve in the study eye with good visual acuity and a diagnosis of choroidal neovascularization or sub-foveal neovascularization at screening in the SOL-1 trial. Every enrolled subject will receive two aflibercept injections between the initial screening visit and day 1: one at week -8 and another at week -4. Subjects reaching approximately 20/20 vision or experiencing an improvement of 10 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study, or ETDRS, letters after these injections, in addition to satisfying other enrollment criteria, will then be randomized in the trial at baseline to receive either one implant of AXPAXLI in the investigational arm or one injection of aflibercept in the control arm, followed every month and rescued as needed with supplemental anti-VEGF treatment based on pre-specified criteria. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects who maintained visual acuity, defined as a BCVA loss of less than 15 letters on the ETDRS chart at week 36. Our pre-specified rescue criteria are a loss of 15 or more letters on the ETDRS chart compared to baseline, or a new hemorrhage that is deemed to be likely to cause irreversible vision loss. A loss of 15 letters or more on the ETDRS chart at any time in the trial would be considered as having met the endpoint as a treatment failure.

​

In September 2023, we submitted a request for a Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, to the FDA to determine whether the proposed clinical protocol and the statistical analysis plan for the SOL-1 trial adequately addressed scientific and regulatory requirements for a clinical trial that could support a marketing application. We received an agreement letter regarding the overall trial design from the FDA under the SPA on October 30, 2023. In December 2023, we

Table of Contents

submitted the SPA Agreement Modification to the FDA to broaden the inclusion criteria for subjects in the SOL-1 trial and to reflect our intention to evaluate a single optimized implant of AXPAXLI with a drug load of 450 µg of a more soluble form of axitinib in the trial. This optimized configuration is expected to provide for a slightly increased daily release of the drug and is designed to improve synchronization of axitinib drug depletion with hydrogel bioresorption. We received an agreement letter regarding the SPA Agreement Modification from the FDA on January 22, 2024. The SPA Agreement Modification enables the trial to include treatment-naïve wet AMD subjects with visual acuity of approximately 20/80 or better at the initial screening visit.

​

The first three subjects in the SOL-1 trial were screened and received their first aflibercept injection in February 2024. We expect to complete enrollment of the SOL-1 trial by the end of the first quarter of 2025.

​

Phase 1 Clinical Trial (Australia)

​

We have conducted an open-label, multi-center, proof-of-concept, dose-escalation Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI for the treatment of patients with wet AMD caused by excessive blood vessel growth in the back of the eye due to VEGF. This Phase 1 clinical trial was designed to evaluate the safety, durability and tolerability of AXPAXLI. All subjects have exited this Phase 1 clinical trial and we are in the process of closing all clinical sites.

​

Our Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI in Australia was submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia’s regulatory authority for therapeutic goods, in July 2018 and was being conducted at multiple sites in Australia. The Phase 1 clinical trial was comprised of four cohorts consisting of subjects with pre-existing intraretinal and/or subretinal fluid: a lower dose cohort of 200 µg with six subjects; a higher dose cohort of 400 µg with seven subjects; a third cohort with two parallel arms, one arm of four subjects receiving a concomitant anti-VEGF injection with 400 µg of AXPAXLI and the other arm of six subjects receiving a 600 µg of AXPAXLI with no anti-VEGF injection; and a fourth cohort with two parallel arms, one arm of one subject receiving a 600 µg single implant of AXPAXLI and the other arm of five subjects receiving a 600 µg single implant of AXPAXLI with anti-VEGF injection. In this trial, we evaluated whether AXPAXLI can reduce existing fluid levels.

​

In the Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI conducted in Australia, we evaluated biological activity by measuring CSFT, using spectral domain optical coherence tomography, or OCT, and following visual acuity over time as measured by BCVA.

​

In February 2022, data as of January 11, 2022 from this Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI was presented at the Angiogenesis, Exudation and Degeneration Virtual Symposium. In subjects with subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid due to wet AMD, AXPAXLI was observed to be generally well tolerated. No ocular serious adverse events were reported in treatment naïve or previously treated wet AMD subjects. Plasma concentrations of the active drug (axitinib) were measured to be below the limit of quantification of assay, or BLQ < 0.1 ng/ml, at all sampled time points for all subjects in cohorts 1, 2, 3a and 3b. This assessment indicated that there was no measurable systemic exposure to axitinib.

This interim data also showed a preliminary signal of biological activity as observed by a clinically meaningful decrease in intraretinal and/or subretinal fluid as measured by high resolution OCT that provides cross-sectional images of the anatomical structure of the retina. Some subjects showed a decrease in intraretinal or subretinal fluid by two months in cohorts 2 (400 µg) and 3a (600 µg). In cohort 3b (400 µg dose plus anti-VEGF induction injection of aflibercept), two subjects showed a decrease in intraretinal or subretinal fluid as early as a week after treatment. We observed extended duration of activity of six months or more for over 60% of subjects across all cohorts and for over 80% of subjects in cohort 3a, in which we administered a 600 μg dose.

In addition, the AXPAXLI implants in cohort 1 (single implant) were observed to have biodegraded in all subjects within nine to 10.5 months of injection. It has also been observed in the trial that the implants were able to be adequately monitored and that there was limited to no movement of the implant.

Phase 1 Clinical Trial (United States)

​

We have conducted a prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States under an exploratory investigational new drug, or eIND, application to evaluate a single implant 600 µg dose of AXPAXLI with an anti-VEGF injection in comparison with a 2 mg dose of aflibercept. The population we studied in this U.S.-based clinical trial was different than the population we studied in our Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI in Australia. In this trial, we evaluated how long we are able to maintain subjects who have been previously treated with

Table of Contents

anti-VEGF therapy without the need for retreatment. All subjects have exited this Phase 1 clinical trial and we are in the process of closing all clinical sites.

​

The trial enrolled a total of 21 subjects at six clinical sites, comprising two arms consisting of subjects previously treated with, and responsive to, standard of care anti-VEGF therapy: a 16-subject arm receiving AXPAXLI in combination with a single anti-VEGF injection at month one and a five-subject arm receiving on-label aflibercept at eight-week intervals. The trial was designed to assess the safety, durability and tolerability of AXPAXLI as well as to assess preliminary biological activity in subjects by measuring anatomical and functional changes.

In February 2023, we announced interim 10-month data from the Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI in the United States at the Angiogenesis, Exudation, and Degeneration 2023 Annual Meeting. As of the December 12, 2022 cut-off date, the interim data showed that the single 600 µg AXPAXLI implant was generally well tolerated with no drug-related ocular or systemic serious adverse events, or SAEs, observed through 10 months. One SAE of endophthalmitis was observed in the AXPAXLI arm which occurred following the aflibercept injection required by the clinical trial protocol at month one and was assessed by the investigator as related to the injection procedure. There were no instances of elevated IOP, retinal detachment, retinal vasculitis, or implant migration into the anterior chamber observed in the AXPAXLI arm, and no subjects had dropped out of either arm as of the data cutoff.

The interim results showed subjects treated with a single AXPAXLI implant demonstrated stable and sustained BCVA (mean change from baseline of -0.3 letters) and CSFT (mean change from baseline of -1.3 µm) in the AXPAXLI arm at 10 months, which was comparable with the aflibercept arm (mean change from BCVA baseline of -0.8 letters; mean change from CSFT baseline of -4.5 µm). Up to Month 10, 73% of subjects remained rescue-free. Overall, a 92% reduction in treatment burden (average percent decrease in injections over the period compared to a standard monthly injection regimen) was observed in AXPAXLI treated subjects for up to 10 months. Four subjects were rescued in the AXPAXLI arm up to Month 10. One subject, the subject who experienced endophthalmitis, was rescued twice. None of these rescues met the preestablished rescue criteria set forth in the clinical trial protocol and were instead initiated at investigator discretion. One additional subject, who met the established rescue criteria at such subject’s Month 10 visit, was rescued at the end of Month 10.

There was one subject randomized to the AXPAXLI arm who was inadvertently given aflibercept instead of sham injections at the subject’s month three and month five visits. Since this subject was not treated according to protocol, the subject was excluded from the analysis of biological activity, which comprised 15 out of the 16 subjects in the AXPAXLI arm and all five subjects in the aflibercept arm, but the subject was included in the safety analysis which comprised all 16 subjects in the AXPAXLI arm and all five subjects in the aflibercept arm.

In April 2023, we presented data regarding the preclinical pharmacokinetics, or PK, of AXPAXLI and a review of the 10-month interim data from the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI in the United States, including AXPAXLI implant resorption data to date. We augmented the results from our ongoing clinical trial with PK data in two animal models showing the uptake of axitinib from our hydrogel implant in the choroid and retinal pigment epithelium, or RPE, cells, where axitinib acts intra-cellularly to exert its VEGF receptor inhibiting effect. That data showed that clinically representative formulations of AXPAXLI delivered sustained axitinib concentrations through 12 months that were well above the IC50 for VEGFR-2 (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor) in cynomolgus monkey retina tissue and choroid/RPE tissues. This preclinical PK data aligns with the pharmacodynamics data we have observed to date in our ongoing U.S. clinical trial, namely the high proportion of rescue-free subjects up to Month 10 and suggests that AXPAXLI may provide continuous VEGF receptor inhibition, which, in turn, may support this new treatment paradigm, Treat to Maintain, in wet AMD care.

In June 2023, we presented 12-month data from the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI in the United States at the Clinical Trials at the Summit 2023 conference sponsored by the American Society of Retina Specialists. As of the April 14, 2023 cut-off date, there were no drug-related ocular or systemic SAEs observed in the AXPAXLI arm except for the one SAE of endophthalmitis following the aflibercept injection at month one that we announced at the 10-month data readout in February 2023 and was assessed by the investigator as related to the injection procedure. There were no retinal detachment, retinal vasculitis, or implant migration into the anterior chamber adverse events observed in the AXPAXLI arm, and no subjects had dropped out of either arm as of the data cut-off. The results showed subjects treated with a single AXPAXLI implant continued to demonstrate sustained BCVA (mean change from baseline of -1.0 letters) and CSFT (mean change from baseline of +20.2 μm) in the AXPAXLI arm at 12 months, which was comparable

Table of Contents

with the aflibercept arm (mean change from BCVA baseline of +2.0 letters; mean change from CSFT baseline of -2.2 μm). Sixty percent of AXPAXLI subjects were rescue-free up to Month 12. At the Month 12 visit, an additional four of the subjects were rescued. Overall, an 89% reduction in treatment burden was observed in AXPAXLI treated subjects at 12 months. These results align with our expectation that we would see a reactivation of disease in some subjects, which we believe indicates that AXPAXLI continues to function as designed with axitinib concentrations beginning to fall below therapeutic levels after the implant bioresorbs.

Next Steps

Subject to agreement with the FDA, we intend to commence screening of the SOL-2 trial by the first quarter of 2025. The SOL-2 trial design is expected to be substantially similar to the design of the SOL-1 trial. If we were to obtain favorable results from the SOL-1 trial and the planned SOL-2 trial evaluating AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD, we expect that we would submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. See “—Government Regulation—Section 505(b)(2) NDAs” for additional information.

Non-Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (NPDR)

Phase 1 Clinical Trial

Given our belief in the potential applicability of AXPAXLI to other retinal diseases, we initiated the HELIOS trial to evaluate AXPAXLI for the treatment of NPDR in the fourth quarter of 2022. The HELIOS trial is a U.S.-based, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel group study evaluating the safety, tolerability and biological activity of AXPAXLI in patients with moderately severe to severe NPDR without DME. We dosed our first subject in February 2023. We are conducting the Phase 1 clinical trial initially under an eIND and are in the process of converting this to a regular IND. We have enrolled 22 subjects with diabetic retinopathy secondary to type 1 or type 2 diabetes who had not had an anti-VEGF injection in the prior 12 months or diabetic macular edema in the prior six months, randomized 2:1 to either a single implant of AXPAXLI containing 600 µg of axitinib or sham control. We announced the completion of enrollment in the HELIOS trial in June 2023 and expect to provide 9-month topline data in the second quarter of 2024.

​

Next Steps

​

We have had discussions with the FDA with respect to the clinical development of AXPAXLI for the treatment of NPDR and have a potential pivotal clinical trial design that is consistent with guidance from the FDA. Subject to favorable topline data from the ongoing HELIOS trial and agreement with the FDA, we intend to commence a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating AXPAXLI for the treatment of NPDR as a next step of clinical development.

​

Glaucoma

Glaucoma is a progressive and highly individualized disease in which elevated levels of IOP are associated with damage to the optic nerve, which results in irreversible vision loss. According to the World Health Organization, glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness in the world. OHT is characterized by elevated levels of IOP without any optic nerve damage. Patients with OHT are at high risk of developing glaucoma.

In a healthy eye, fluid is continuously produced and drained to maintain pressure equilibrium and provide nutrients to the ocular tissue. Excess fluid production or insufficient drainage of fluid in the front of the eye or a combination of these problems causes increased IOP. The increased IOP associated with uncontrolled glaucoma results in degeneration of the optic nerve in the back of the eye and loss of peripheral vision. Once glaucoma develops, it is a chronic condition that requires life-long treatment.

According to the Market Scope 2023 Glaucoma Pharmaceuticals Market Report, it is estimated that there were 126.6 million people globally in 2023 with primary OAG or OHT. In the United States, it is estimated there are 6.8 million and 3.7 million who had primary OAG or OHT, respectively. Both groups are estimated to grow by 1.3% and 2.4% annually through 2026, respectively. The primary goal of glaucoma treatment is to slow the progression of this chronic disease by reducing IOP, and many medications can accomplish this. Importantly, however, adherence to current topical glaucoma therapies is known to be particularly poor with reported rates of non-adherence from 30% to 80%. These low compliance rates may be associated with disease progression and loss of vision and may be part of the

Table of Contents

reason that glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness in people over 60 years of age. Prostaglandins are the most commonly used class of medications to treat patients with glaucoma and are administered via daily eye drops as the current standard of care. The ability of patients to use and place daily eye drops is challenging. The product candidates that we are developing are designed to address the issue of compliance by delivering a prostaglandin analog, or PGA, formulated with our programmed release hydrogel to lower IOP for several months with a single insert.

Market Data

The global market for glaucoma was estimated by Market Scope at $4.3 billion in 2023 with the U.S. market representing $1.6 billion. The global market is estimated to grow at 4.9% annually to approximately $5.5 billion in 2028 while the U.S. market is expected to grow 3.9% annually to approximately $2.0 billion in 2028.

The market for drugs administered by eye drops for the treatment of glaucoma consists of both branded and generic products. Branded products have maintained premium pricing and significant market share. These products include Lumigan (bimatoprost) marketed by Allergan, Travatan Z (travoprost) marketed by Novartis, Tapros marketed by Santen, and recently approved Miebo (perfluorohexyloctane ophthalmic solution) marketed by Bausch + Lomb. Commonly used generic drugs include latanoprost and timolol.

Glaucoma Program

PAXTRAVA (travoprost intracameral implant)

​

Our product candidate PAXTRAVA is a bioresorbable hydrogel implant based on ELUTYX, incorporating travoprost, an FDA-approved prostaglandin analog designed to lower elevated IOP, that is designed to be administered by a physician as an intracameral injection with an initial target duration of drug release of four to six months with a single treatment.

​

Phase 2 Clinical Trial

​

We are conducting a U.S.-based Phase 2 prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of PAXTRAVA for the treatment of patients with primary OAG or OHT under an IND. The Phase 2 clinical trial was initially designed to include approximately 105 subjects at 15 to 20 sites between three arms of approximately 35 subjects each to evaluate two formulations of PAXTRAVA for the treatment of OAG or OHT in subjects compared to DURYSTA. The non-study eye of each subject receives a topical prostaglandin daily. The primary efficacy endpoint is measured by diurnal IOP mean change from baseline (8 a.m., 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.) at two, six and 12 weeks. The active comparator control arm receives one injection of DURYSTA in one eye and a topical prostaglandin daily in the non-study eye.

​

We initiated the Phase 2 clinical trial in the fourth quarter of 2021 and dosed the first subject in the first quarter of 2022. One arm in the Phase 2 clinical trial is receiving the same formulation used in cohort 2 of the Phase 1 clinical trial of PAXTRAVA that we conducted, containing a 26 µg dose of drug and utilizing a standard implant. The second arm was receiving the same formulation used in cohort 4 of the Phase 1 clinical trial, containing a 5 µg dose of drug and utilizing a fast-degrading implant. Due to elevations in IOP observed approximately 12 weeks after enrollment in six subjects in the PAXTRAVA 5 µg arm of the trial, we terminated enrollment in the 5 µg arm of the trial in the fourth quarter of 2022 and continued with the PAXTRAVA 26 µg and DURYSTA arms of the trial.

​

The Phase 2 clinical trial consists of 86 subjects: 35 subjects in the PAXTRAVA 26 µg treatment arm, 35 subjects in the DURYSTA arm and 16 subjects that were previously enrolled in the PAXTRAVA 5 µg treatment arm. Enrollment of the Phase 2 clinical trial was completed in July 2023. We have started a pilot repeat-dose sub-study in the Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the safety of a repeat, sustained release dose of PAXTRAVA 26 μg, in a small subset of subjects with OAG or OHT. These subjects will be followed for at least six months after their enrollment in the sub-study to monitor and evaluate their endothelial cell health. We plan to provide topline data from the single-dose portion of the Phase 2 clinical trial, assessing the safety, efficacy and durability of PAXTRAVA and whether the product candidate’s preservation of endothelial cell health could make the drug suitable for chronic dosing, at the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2024 Annual Meeting in April 2024.

​

Table of Contents

Phase 1 clinical development

​

We submitted an IND for PAXTRAVA in February 2018 and have completed a prospective, multi-center, open-label, dose-escalation, proof-of-concept Phase 1 clinical trial of PAXTRAVA in the United States that we initiated in the second quarter of 2018 for the treatment of subjects with moderate to severe glaucoma or OHT. The clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety, biological activity, durability and tolerability of PAXTRAVA in subjects with controlled OAG or OHT. The clinical trial consisted of four subject cohorts: cohort 1 included five subjects who received a 15 µg dose, cohort 2 included four subjects who received a 26 µg dose, cohort 3 included five subjects who received a 15 µg dose with a fast-degrading implant, and cohort 4 included five subjects who received a 5 µg dose with a fast-degrading implant.

​

In February 2022, at the Glaucoma 360 virtual meeting, we presented interim results from all four subject cohorts in the Phase 1 clinical trial. We believe, based on these results, that PAXTRAVA shows potential as a sustained-release therapy with a long duration of action. In the Phase 1 clinical trial, at least one subject in each of the four cohorts receiving PAXTRAVA were observed to experience a mean change in IOP from baseline as measured at 8:00 am, 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. as early as two days following injection. We believe these results were comparable to the decrease in IOP achieved with topical travoprost administered via daily eye drops, the current standard of care. IOP lowering effects lasted more than six months in subjects in cohorts 1 and 2 and three to six months in subjects in cohorts 3 and 4.

​

The PAXTRAVA implant was observed to biodegrade in between five and seven months in subjects in cohorts 1 and 2. In subjects in cohorts 3 and 4, the fast-degrading implants biodegraded between three and five months. Within all four cohorts, implants were not observed to move when viewed with a slit lamp biomicroscope and were visible at all examinations in all subjects using gonioscopy. Corneal health as measured by endothelial cell counts, pachymetry assessments, and slit lamp examinations did not indicate any clinically meaningful changes from baseline in any of the four cohorts. IOP elevation was observed in three subjects in cohort 3 at the approximate time of the implant resorption.

​

Next Steps

​

If the data from our Phase 2 clinical trial is favorable, we intend to evaluate our strategic alternatives for advancing the development of PAXTRAVA to pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials. If we were to decide to move the PAXTRAVA program into pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials, we would be required to successfully complete two well-controlled pivotal clinical trials conducted under an IND to seek marketing approval from the FDA. If our development efforts are successful, we expect that we would submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. See “—Government Regulation—Section 505(b)(2) NDAs” for additional information.

​

Ocular Surface Diseases

Dry Eye Disease

Dry eye disease is a chronic, multifactorial disease affecting the tears and ocular surface that can result in dryness, inflammation, irritation, pain, tear film instability, visual disturbance and ocular surface damage. Dry eye disease can have a significant impact on quality of life and can potentially cause long-term damage to the ocular surface. Due to the impact of dry eye disease on tear film dynamics, the condition can affect performance of common vision-related activities such as reading, using a computer and driving, and can lead to complications associated with visual impairment. In addition, the vast majority of dry eye patients experience acute episodic exacerbations of their symptoms, which are commonly referred to as flares, at various times throughout the year. These flares can be triggered by numerous factors, including exposure to allergens, pollution, wind and low humidity, intense visual concentration such as watching television and working at a computer, hormonal changes, contact lens wear, smoking and sleep deprivation, which cause ocular surface inflammation and impact tear production and/or tear film stability.

There are approximately 17.8 million patients diagnosed with dry eye disease in the United States, according to the Market Scope 2022 Dry Eye Products Market Report. Approximately 9.8 million of those patients are diagnosed with moderate to severe dry eye while the remaining 8.0 million patients are diagnosed with mild dry eye disease. The prevalence of dry eye disease increases with age, and we expect that the number of dry eye disease cases will increase as the U.S. population continues to age.

Table of Contents

The current standard of care for moderate to severe dry eye disease is the use of artificial tears and topical anti- inflammatory and immune modulating drugs administered by prescription eye drops. The anti-inflammatory and immune modulating prescription drug market consists of Restasis, for increasing tear production, marketed by Allergan; Cequa for increasing tear production, marketed by Sun Ophthalmics in the United States; lifitegrast, for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, marketed by Bausch & Lomb (previously marketed by Novartis) under the brand name Xiidra; and off-label use of corticosteroids. As each of Restasis and Xiidra have a relatively long onset of action, they are not generally used for the short-term treatment of episodic dry eye flares. In addition, patients have reported significant issues with stinging and burning when using several of the current treatments.

Market Data

The global market for dry ocular surface disease, which we refer to as dry eye disease, was estimated by Market Scope at $5.7 billion in 2022 with the U.S. market representing $2.2 billion. There are many products to treat dry eye on the market from over an estimated 150 companies, from both the pharmaceutical and OTC segments. Within the prescription category, two of the better-known branded products are Xiidra from Novartis and Restasis from Allergan. In 2022, Xiidra recorded global sales of $487 million while Restasis recorded sales of $666 million.

Post-Surgical Ocular Inflammation and Pain

Ocular inflammation and pain are common side effects following ophthalmic surgery. Frequently performed ophthalmic surgeries include cataract, refractive, vitreoretinal, cornea, and glaucoma procedures. Physicians prescribe anti-inflammatory drugs, such as corticosteroids, which are typically administered through eye drops multiple times per day, following ocular surgery as the standard of care. These drugs improve patient comfort and also accelerate recovery through disruption of the inflammatory cascade resulting in decreased inflammation and reduced activity of the immune system. Physicians also frequently prescribe non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, as adjunctive or combination therapy to supplement the use of corticosteroids. If left untreated, inflammation of the eye may result in further ocular complications, including pain, scarring and vision loss.

Market Data

Market Scope has estimated that approximately 9.8 million ocular surgeries were performed in the United States in 2023, an increase of approximately 3.5% over 2022. According to the Market Scope 2023 US and Western Europe Cataract Pharmaceuticals Market Report, there were an estimated 4.7 million cataract surgeries in the United States in 2023, an increase of 3.0% over 2022. We currently focus our sales efforts for DEXTENZA for the treatment of inflammation and pain on patients covered by Medicare Part B which accounts for roughly 50% of all cataract surgeries or approximately 2 million surgeries annually. At the current wholesale acquisition price of $555 per insert, we estimate that there is a near-term addressable market of approximately $1 billion per year in the surgical space.

According to IQVIA, Inc. data, approximately 21.6 million prescriptions were filled in the United States in 2023 for anti-inflammatory drugs administered by prescription eye drops for ocular diseases and conditions, resulting in sales of approximately $4.6 billion. These prescriptions consisted of approximately 8.8 million prescriptions and $520.0 million in sales for single-agent corticosteroids, 3.3 million prescriptions and $266.0 million in sales for NSAIDs, 5.4 million prescriptions and $348.0 million in sales for corticosteroid and antibiotic combination products and approximately 4.8 million prescriptions and $3.6 billion in sales for dry eye disease products.

Allergic Conjunctivitis

Allergic conjunctivitis, another ocular surface disease, is an inflammatory disease of the conjunctiva resulting primarily from a reaction to allergy- causing substances such as pollen or pet dander. The primary sign of this inflammation is redness and the primary symptom is acute itching. Allergic conjunctivitis ranges in clinical severity from relatively mild, common forms to more severe forms that can cause impaired vision. According to a study on the management of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis published in 2012 in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Ophthalmologica, allergic conjunctivitis affects 15% to 40% of the U.S. population. The first line of defense against allergic conjunctivitis is avoidance of the allergen. If this is not successful, physicians typically prescribe a combination of a topical mast cell stabilizer and an anti-histamine. These treatments act to reduce the signs and symptoms of the early phase allergic reaction. For the subset of patients with chronic or more severe forms of allergic conjunctivitis, anti-histamines and mast

Table of Contents

cell stabilizers are often not sufficient to treat their signs and symptoms. These refractory patients are frequently treated with topical corticosteroids administered by prescription eye drops.

It is estimated that up to 10 million people in the United States seek medical attention annually for the inflammatory response associated with allergic conjunctivitis caused by both seasonal and perennial allergens.

Market Data

According to IQVIA, Inc. data, approximately 4.6 million anti-allergy eye drop prescriptions were filled in the United States in 2023, resulting in sales of approximately $257.0 million. The market to treat allergic conjunctivitis consists of antihistamines, mast-cell stabilizers and steroid eye drops and consists of both branded and generic products. Commonly used branded steroids include Lotemax and Alrex (loteprednol etabonate) marketed by Bausch & Lomb, and Durezol (difluprednate) marketed by Alcon. Commonly used generic steroids include prednisolone, dexamethasone and fluorometholone.

Ocular Surface Disease Programs

​

We are engaged in the development of formulations of our hydrogel administered via intracanalicular inserts to address large markets for diseases and conditions of the surface of the eye. Our development efforts are focused on the use of our extended-delivery hydrogel in combination with well-known and well-understood drugs (corticosteroids and cyclosporine) for the treatment of dry eye disease, allergic conjunctivitis and inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery.

OTX-DED (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert)

One of the causes of dry eye disease is inflammation. Topical anti-inflammatory drugs are used as one of several therapies to treat dry eye disease and are administered by eye drops. As the understanding of dry eye disease, specifically the inflammatory components of dry eye disease, has evolved, the use of corticosteroids has become common to offer short-term relief of signs and symptoms of the disease. Physicians typically prescribe a topical corticosteroid for a period of two to four weeks, tapered over the course of delivery as the inflammation and symptoms subside. However, safety limitations associated with the prolonged use of corticosteroids for dry eye disease have limited widespread adoption. We believe that our product candidate OTX-DED has potential as a short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease caused by inflammation.

​

OTX-DED incorporates the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient in a hydrogel, drug-eluting intracanalicular insert. OTX-DED incorporates the same active drug as DEXTENZA but includes a lower dose of the drug, is administered in the office setting as a smaller insert and is designed to release dexamethasone over a period of two to three weeks, compared with up to thirty days in the case of DEXTENZA.

​

Phase 2 clinical trial

We submitted an IND in November 2020 for OTX-DED. In February 2021, we initiated a U.S.-based, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, multi-center Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating two different-strength formulations of OTX-DED (0.2 mg and 0.3 mg of dexamethasone) versus a hydrogel implant in a total of 166 subjects with dry eye disease, with more than 50 subjects per arm. The subjects were followed for approximately two months after randomization. This trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of these two formulations of OTX-DED for the short-term treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. Included subjects were required to have diagnosed dry eye disease in both eyes for at least six months, a Visual Analog Score, or VAS, eye dryness severity score of at least 30 and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia grade of at least 2 on the Cornea Contact Lens Research Unit (CCLRU) Grading scale. The primary endpoint was mean change in bulbar conjunctival hyperemia from baseline measured at 15 days post treatment by central reading center photographic assessment. Secondary endpoints included eye dryness symptoms using VAS, total CFS, or corneal total fluorescein staining, using the National Eye Institute scale and adverse events, both ocular and non-ocular.

We announced the topline Phase 2 clinical results in December 2021. The clinical trial achieved its pre-specified primary endpoint. Although the clinical trial was not powered to show statistical significance, the topline results

Table of Contents

demonstrated a statistically significant change of bulbar conjunctival hyperemia from baseline to day 15 compared to the vehicle hydrogel using a central reading photographic assessment in the modified ITT population. Change from baseline using the CCLRU Grading scale (0-4) was -0.51 for the OTX-DED 0.2 mg group (n=55), -0.43 for the OTX-DED 0.3 mg group (n=56), and -0.21 for the vehicle hydrogel insert group (n=55). These differences were statistically significant compared with the vehicle hydrogel for both the OTX-DED 0.2 mg group (p=.004) and the OTX-DED 0.3 mg group (p=.028). Sensitivity analysis using different methods of imputation including last observation carry forward (LOCF), Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), and fully conditioned specifications (FCS) were consistent with the primary analysis. Improvements from baseline were noted in the VAS dry eye symptoms for both OTX-DED 0.2 mg and OTX-DED 0.3 mg groups, but there was little separation between OTX-DED and the vehicle hydrogel insert.

Both formulations of OTX-DED were generally observed to have a favorable safety profile and be well tolerated. There were no ocular serious adverse events observed. The most common ocular adverse events for subjects treated with OTX-DED were epiphora (lacrimation increase) (8.1%) and elevated IOP (3.6%). All other ocular adverse events occurred in less than 1% of subjects. The most common non-ocular adverse event for subjects treated with OTX-DED was arthralgia (joint pain) which was seen in 1.8% of subjects. All other non-ocular adverse events occurred in less than 1% of subjects.

​

Ongoing Clinical Work

Based on the data from the Phase 2 clinical trial, we initiated a small trial in the second quarter of 2023 in connection with our efforts to develop an appropriate placebo comparator that may be used in both the OTX-DED and OTX-CSI programs. This trial is evaluating the performance of OTX-DED versus placebo inserts, namely fast-dissolving, biodegradable collagen plugs, and no inserts at all, to explain the placebo performance seen in the Phase 2 clinical trials evaluating both OTX-DED and OTX-CSI in which the vehicle hydrogel placebo insert or placebo comparator vehicle remained in the canaliculus longer than anticipated, performing more like an active comparator than a placebo. We anticipate we will complete enrollment for this trial in the first half of 2024, and to deliver topline data in the fourth quarter of 2024. We plan to use the results of this trial to inform the next steps for both the OTX-DED and OTX-CSI programs.

​

Next Steps

If the data from the ongoing trial of evaluating OTX-DED versus potential comparators is favorable, we intend to evaluate our strategic alternatives for advancing the development of OTX-DED.

​

OTX-CSI (cyclosporine intracanalicular insert)

OTX-CSI incorporates the FDA-approved immunomodulator cyclosporine as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient into a hydrogel, drug-eluting, intracanalicular insert. The product candidate is designed for subjects suffering from moderate to severe dry eye and to be administered by a physician as a bioresorbable intracanalicular insert. OTX-CSI is designed to release cyclosporine to the ocular surface for approximately three to four months in order to increase tear production for the chronic treatment of dry eye disease.

​

Phase 1 clinical development

We submitted an IND for OTX-CSI in the United States in December 2019 and initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial in the first quarter of 2020. The Phase 1 clinical trial was a U.S.-based, open-label, single-center trial that included five subjects (ten eyes) who were followed for approximately four months. The study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability and durability of OTX-CSI and assess the biological activity by measuring signs and symptoms of dry eye disease over this time period.

​

On October 8, 2020, we announced topline data from our Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating OTX-CSI in the chronic treatment of dry eye disease. All subjects completed the 16-week study period with no drop-outs. There were no serious adverse effects reported. The inserts were observed to be well-tolerated, and there were no adverse events of stinging, irritation, blurred vision or tearing reported or observed.

​

Tear production as measured by the Schirmer’s test improved from mean values of 4.2 mm at baseline to 8.2 mm at Week 12. One of five subjects (20%) had a greater than 10 mm increase from baseline in Schirmer’s score at Week

Table of Contents

12. Subjects saw an improvement in signs of dry eye disease as measured by CFS (a mean value of 6.7 at baseline, improved to a mean value of 2.7 at Week 12, on a scale of 0 to 15). Further, subjects saw an improvement in symptoms of dry eye disease as measured by the VAS eye dryness severity score (a mean value of 51 at baseline, improved to a mean value of 33 at Week 12, on a scale of 0 to 100) and the VAS dry eye frequency score (a mean value of 51 at baseline, improved to a mean value of 31 at Week 12, on a scale of 0 to 100). The onset of action of OTX-CSI was seen as early as two weeks for both signs and symptoms of dry eye disease and was observed to continue over the sixteen-week study period.

​

Phase 2 clinical development

In September 2020, we dosed the first subjects in a U.S.-based, randomized, double-masked, multi-center, vehicle-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial designed to assess the safety, tolerability and durability and to evaluate the efficacy of OTX-CSI in the chronic treatment of dry eye disease. The Phase 2 clinical trial evaluated two different formulations of OTX-CSI compared with a hydrogel vehicle insert in approximately 140 subjects who were followed for a period of 16 weeks (12-week study period, with an additional 4-week safety follow-up). Included subjects must have been diagnosed with dry eye disease in both eyes for a period of greater than six months and have a VAS eye dryness severity score of greater than 30. The primary endpoints are incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and the absolute value and change from baseline at week 12 in tear production as measured by the Schirmer’s test. Secondary endpoints include signs of dry eye disease as measured by CFS and symptoms of dry eye disease as measured by the VAS eye dryness severity score and the VAS dry eye frequency score.

​

We announced topline results from our Phase 2 clinical trial in October 2021. In the Phase 2 clinical trial, OTX-CSI was administered to 147 subjects with dry eye disease at 15 sites in the United States. The four groups evaluated in this study were: OTX-CSI for a shorter duration (two to three months formulation-F1, n=42), OTX-CSI for a longer duration (three to four months formulation-F2a, n=40), vehicle insert for a longer duration (three to four months formulation-F2b, n=43) and vehicle insert for a very short duration (one week formulation-F3, n=22).

The study did not show separation between subjects receiving OTX-CSI (both formulations) and subjects receiving the vehicle (both formulations) for the primary endpoint of increased tear production at 12 weeks as measured by the Schirmer’s Test. Mean change from baseline (improvement) in Schirmer’s Test scores for the four groups were as follows: OTX-CSI F1: 1.98 mm, OTX-CSI F2a: 1.91 mm, Vehicle F2b: 2.24 mm and Vehicle F3: 3.08 mm.

The study did show an improvement compared with baseline in signs of dry eye disease as measured by total CFS and symptoms of dry eye disease as measured by the VAS eye dryness in subjects treated with the OTX-CSI insert (both formulations) starting as early as two weeks after insertion and continuing over the 12 weeks study period. These improvements were not statistically significant compared with vehicle insert (both formulations) for either CFS or VAS eye dryness (severity and frequency) at 12 weeks.

Overall, the OTX-CSI insert (both formulations) was generally observed to have a favorable safety profile and be well tolerated. There were no ocular serious adverse events observed. No subjects dropped out of the trial due to an adverse event. The most common ocular adverse event was ocular pruritis, or itchy eyes, which was seen in less than 16% of subjects. The adverse events of ocular discomfort or pain were seen in less than 3% of subjects. The most common non-ocular event was COVID-19 and was seen in 3% of subjects.

​

Next Steps

If the data from the ongoing trial of evaluating OTX-DED versus potential comparators is favorable, we intend to evaluate our strategic alternatives for advancing the development of OTX-CSI.

​

Table of Contents

Commercial Portfolio

​

Post-Surgical Ocular Inflammation and Pain

​

DEXTENZA (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert)

​

DEXTENZA incorporates the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient into a hydrogel, drug-eluting intracanalicular insert. Following FDA approval, we commercially launched DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical inflammation and pain in July 2019. DEXTENZA is the first FDA-approved intracanalicular insert delivering dexamethasone to treat post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain for up to 30 days with a single administration.

We selected dexamethasone as the active pharmaceutical ingredient for DEXTENZA because it is approved by the FDA and has a long history of ophthalmic use; is available on a generic basis; is highly potent and is typically prescribed for prevention of ocular inflammation and pain following ocular surgery; is available from multiple qualified suppliers; and has physical properties that are well suited for incorporation within our hydrogel technology.

The dexamethasone drug particles embedded within our DEXTENZA intracanalicular insert gradually erode and release the drug in a programmed fashion until the drug is depleted. As the dexamethasone drug particles erode and the hydrogel degrades by hydrolysis, the intracanalicular insert softens, liquefies and is cleared through the nasolacrimal duct. We provide the DEXTENZA drug product in a preservative-free formulation in a sterile, single use package.

The standard regimen for dexamethasone eye drops following cataract surgery is an initial administration of four times daily for one week, with a gradual tapering in the number of eye drops over a four-week period. Such a regimen is often confusing to patients as they must remember to taper the number of times per day they administer the steroid, while also taking multiple drops of other drugs, such as antibiotics and NSAIDs. We believe that local programmed-release of drug to the eye may result in better control of ocular inflammation and pain as compared to prescription eye drops and that a low dose amount may provide enhanced safety by eliminating spikes in IOP associated with high-dose steroid eye drops.

Investigator-Initiated Trials

We have received proposals for, and are supporting, several investigator-initiated trials evaluating DEXTENZA in different clinical situations. To date, third-party clinical investigators have initiated over 45 trials to study the use of DEXTENZA in cataract surgery, other ophthalmic surgeries and other potential indications. Over 25 of the trials have completed enrollment, and the remaining trials are actively enrolling and treated subjects are being followed. To date, 19 of the trials have published study reports.

Post-Approval Studies

In September 2020, we announced that we had dosed the first pediatric subjects in a U.S.-based, randomized, multicenter Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain in children following cataract surgery. This clinical trial is a post-approval requirement of the FDA in accordance with the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, in connection with the FDA’s prior approval of DEXTENZA for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery in adults. We enrolled 65 subjects in this clinical trial. It is designed to evaluate the safety of DEXTENZA compared to an active control, prednisolone acetate suspension eye drops, for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery for pediatric cataract in children between zero and five years of age. The FDA has agreed that this Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain in children following cataract surgery may also satisfy the post-approval requirement for a pediatric trial as it relates to the indication for ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.

All subjects have exited this trial and we are in the process of analyzing the final data. We anticipate that we will submit the clinical study report and updated package insert to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024.

Table of Contents

Foreign Approvals

Outside the United States, we continue to assess whether to seek regulatory approval for DEXTENZA in markets such as the European Union, Australia and Japan based on the market opportunity, particularly pricing, and the requirements for marketing approval. Given our prioritization of the clinical development of our sustained-release product candidates and our planned commercialization efforts for our initial intracanalicular insert product candidates in the United States, we will need to engage third parties to assist us in the approval process.

We have entered into a license agreement and collaboration with AffaMed for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA, along with PAXTRAVA in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea, and the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or the AffaMed License Agreement. In January 2022, AffaMed dosed its first subject in a study conducted in China evaluating the safety and efficacy of DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain post-cataract surgery. This prospective, single-arm, real-world trial is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery in approximately 120 subjects at the Bo’ao Super Hospital, or the Bo’ao Real World Study. The Bo’ao Real World Study’s primary efficacy endpoint is the absence of anterior chamber cells in the study eye at Day 14, and the key secondary endpoint is the absence of pain in the study eye at Day 8. In October 2023, AffaMed announced positive topline results from the Bo’ao Real World Study. As announced by AffaMed, the trial met its primary endpoint, with DEXTENZA demonstrating a significant reduction of ocular inflammation as measured by the absence of anterior chamber cells (i.e. score of "0") in the study eye on Day 14 after cataract surgery. AffaMed also announced that the trial also met its secondary endpoint, demonstrating a significant reduction of ocular pain on Day 8, and that DEXTENZA was well-tolerated and had a favorable safety profile consistent with all prior trials.

In April 2023, AffaMed announced that China’s National Medical Products Administration, or NMPA, had approved AffaMed’s Clinical Trial Application to initiate a Phase 3 registrational study in China to investigate the efficacy and safety of DEXTENZA in subjects following ophthalmic surgery, or the Phase 3 Registrational Study. In September 2023, AffaMed announced that the first subject had been treated in the Phase 3 Registrational Study.

In February 2024, AffaMed announced that the Singapore Health Sciences Authority has accepted AffaMed’s new drug application for DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery, and ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis for evaluation. In April 2022, AffaMed announced that DEXTENZA has been approved in Macau, China for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery. We do not expect that DEXTENZA sales in Macau will result in material revenues to us.

We retain the right to develop and commercialize DEXTENZA in all other global markets. From time to time, we may consider additional arrangements with other companies to address markets outside of the United States. If we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval to market and sell DEXTENZA in international markets, we expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize DEXTENZA. See “—Government Regulation—Review and Approval of Medical Devices in the European Union” for additional information.

Allergic Conjunctivitis

​

DEXTENZA (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) for the Treatment of Ocular Itching Associated with Allergic Conjunctivitis

​

In October 2021, the FDA approved our supplemental New Drug Application, sNDA, for DEXTENZA to include the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis as an additional indication. With the approval, DEXTENZA became the first, FDA-approved, physician-administered intracanalicular insert capable of delivering a preservative-free drug for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis with a single administration for up to 30 days. DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis also represents our first indication approved to be administered in a physician’s office during a routine, non-surgical appointment.

​

Although dexamethasone is clinically effective in the treatment of late-phase inflammatory allergic reactions, the safety limitations associated with eye drop administration, including the potential to generate spikes in IOP due to the high levels of drug due to potential patient abuse to treat this symptomatic condition, have limited its widespread

Table of Contents

adoption. These elevations in IOP can lead to drug-induced glaucoma, although the incidence is low. Further, use of oral antihistamine medications as well as anti-histamine eye drops for allergic conjunctivitis may dry out the eye and exacerbate the discomfort to some patients. Based on our clinical trial results to date, we believe that using DEXTENZA for allergic conjunctivitis can create a low, tapered, consistent dose of dexamethasone, potentially minimizing or eliminating side effects associated with the eye drop formulation, while retaining the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

​

We believe that allergic conjunctivitis represents a discrete potential market opportunity for preservative-free DEXTENZA because it is a physician-administered, hands-free, therapy administered in the office setting. We believe that many of the specialists who treat patients for post-surgical inflammation and pain also treat patients suffering from allergic conjunctivitis.

​

We commercially launched DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the first quarter of 2022 utilizing a small, dedicated and highly focused sales force of four key account managers and two field reimbursement managers that called exclusively on the offices of ophthalmologists and optometrists. In the fourth quarter of 2022, we redeployed this small sales force to join the DEXTENZA sales force focused on the ophthalmic surgery market, specifically cataract surgery, in ambulatory surgery centers, or ASCs, and hospital outpatient departments, or HOPDs. We believe that cataract surgeries represent a larger, near-term market opportunity.

​

AffaMed License Agreement

​

Under the terms of the AffaMed License Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $12 million and became eligible to receive development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments and clinical development support payments of up to $91 million in the aggregate, as well as royalties from future product sales. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we received a $1 million milestone payment upon the approval by the FDA of an sNDA for DEXTENZA to include the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis as an additional indication; in the second quarter of 2022, we received a $2 million clinical support payment in connection with dosing the first subject in a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating PAXTRAVA for the treatment of OAG or OHT; and in the second quarter of 2023, we received a $1 million milestone payment upon the NMPA’s approval of AffaMed’s Phase 3 Registrational Study. Royalties are tiered and will range from the low teens to low twenty percent range. In return, we agreed to grant AffaMed exclusive rights to develop and commercialize DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery and ocular itching in patients with allergic conjunctivitis, and PAXTRAVA for the reduction of elevated IOP in patients with primary OAG or OHT in specified Asian markets. We retain the right to develop and commercialize DEXTENZA and PAXTRAVA in all other global markets.

​

Sales, Marketing and Distribution

​

We generally expect to retain commercial rights in the United States to any of our product candidates for which we may receive marketing approvals and which we believe we can successfully commercialize. In general, if we receive approval to market any of our product candidates in the United States, we plan to then evaluate the regulatory approval requirements and commercial potential for any such product candidate in Europe, Japan and other selected geographies. If we decide to commercialize our products outside of the United States, we expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize any product of ours that receives marketing approval.

​

We sell DEXTENZA in the United States primarily to a network of specialty distributors on a direct basis, who then resell DEXTENZA to ASCs, HOPDs, and physicians’ offices. We also sell DEXTENZA on a direct basis to a small number of ASCs. We intend to offer this distribution option more broadly to our end customers starting in the third quarter of 2024.

​

In addition to distribution agreements with specialty distributors and a small number of ASCs, we enter into arrangements with government payors that provide for government-mandated rebates and chargebacks with respect to the purchase of DEXTENZA. We have built a highly targeted, key account sales force of KAMs, or key account managers, Regional Directors, and FRMs, or field reimbursement managers, that focus on the ASCs and their affiliates responsible for the largest volumes of cataract surgery in the United States, with an initial emphasis on the approximately two million cataract procedures performed annually under Medicare Part B.

​

Table of Contents

During 2022, we adjusted our discounting and rebate strategy to meet the demands of the market. In the third quarter of 2022, we implemented an off-invoice discount program whereby providers receive the discounted price immediately upon purchase, rather than having to wait until the end of the quarter for a rebate payment. We focus our sales efforts on sales to ASCs and strategic accounts that own and control multiple ASCs. In the first quarter of 2023, we launched a Commercial Assurance Program to provide assistance with patients’ out-of-pocket costs, supporting the expansion of DEXTENZA for commercially insured patients not covered by government payors.

​

Manufacturing

​

We fabricate devices and drug products for use in our clinical trials, research and development and commercial efforts for all of our products and product candidates using current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, at our approximately 20,000 square foot facility located in Bedford, Massachusetts. In June 2016, we entered into a new lease agreement for approximately 71,000 square feet of a facility in Bedford, Massachusetts that primarily houses our research and development functions but may include additional manufacturing space in the future.

​

We purchase active pharmaceutical ingredient drug substance from independent suppliers on a purchase order basis for incorporation into our drug product candidates. We purchase our PEG and other raw materials from different vendors on a purchase order basis according to our specifications. While we believe that multiple vendors are available for each component we purchase, we have historically sole-sourced each component. We qualify vendors according to our quality system requirements. We do not have any long-term supply agreements in place for any raw materials or drug substances. We do not license any technology or pay any royalties to any of our drug or raw material vendors for the current or potential front and back-of-the-eye products.

​

We believe that our strategic investment in manufacturing capabilities allows us to advance product candidates at a more rapid pace and with more flexibility than a contract manufacturer, although we will continue to evaluate outsourcing unit operations for cost advantages. Our manufacturing capability also enables us to produce products in a cost-effective manner while retaining control over the manufacturing process and prioritizing the timing of internal programs.

​

Our manufacturing capabilities encompass the full manufacturing process through quality control and quality assurance and are integrated with our project teams from discovery through development and commercial release. This structure enables us to efficiently transfer research stage product concepts into manufacturing. We have designed our manufacturing facility and processes to provide flexibility for the manufacture of different product candidates. We outsource sterilization services for our products.

​

We believe that we can scale our manufacturing processes to support DEXTENZA sales as well as development of our drug product candidates and the potential commercialization of such product candidates.

​

Intellectual Property

​

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our products, product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We rely on patent protection, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

We have issued patents and/or patent applications pending for all of our commercial products and product candidates, as well as trade secrets to protect proprietary manufacturing processes. As of December 31, 2023, we owned or exclusively licensed in certain fields of use over 250 issued U.S. patents, pending U.S. patent applications, issued foreign patents and pending foreign patent applications.

Certain of our U.S. patents and applications, and foreign counterparts, are owned by us and other U.S. patents and applications, and their foreign counterparts have been in-licensed from Incept.

The existence of patent applications does not guarantee that a patent will issue, or that any patent that does issue will cover the product or product candidate. Issued patents are subject to validity, enforceability and infringement challenges by third parties with uncertain chances of success.

Table of Contents

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent for certain patents as partial compensation for the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended.

Similar provisions are available in the European Union and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, where applicable, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on certain issued patents covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors. The expiration dates referred to above are without regard to potential patent term extension or other market exclusivity that may be available to us.

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, and certain consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data.

The following is a summary of patents and patent applications that cover our commercial products and potentially cover our product candidates:

AXPAXLI (axitinib intravitreal implant) for Wet AMD, DME and RVO

We own issued patents in the United States and patents in certain foreign jurisdictions that cover this product candidate, with current expiration dates in 2041. Additional U.S. and foreign patent applications are pending.

PAXTRAVA (travoprost intracameral implant) for OAG or OHT

​

We have licenses to pending U.S. applications and certain foreign patent applications pending that potentially cover this product candidate that, if granted, are expected to expire in 2037. Certain foreign licensed patent applications have been issued and expire in 2037. We own an issued patent in the United States and patents in certain foreign jurisdictions that cover this product candidate, with current expiration dates in 2041. Additional owned U.S. and foreign patent applications are pending.

OTX-DED (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert) for episodic dry eye disease

​

We have licenses to U.S. patents, and certain foreign counterparts, with current expiration dates in 2030.  We own an issued patent that expires in 2037 that covers this product candidate and a pending patent application in the United States, and certain foreign counterparts, with the potential to cover this product candidate that, if granted, are expected to expire in 2041.

OTX-CSI (cyclosporine intracanalicular insert) for dry eye disease

​

We have licenses to U.S. patents, and certain foreign counterparts, that cover this product candidate, with current expiration dates in 2030.  We own issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States that cover this product candidate with current expiration dates in 2037 and in 2041, and corresponding foreign patent applications that, if granted, are expected to expire in 2041.

Table of Contents

DEXTENZA (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) 0.4 mg

​

We have licenses to U.S. patents, and certain foreign counterparts, with current expiration dates in 2030 that cover this product.

We also own a U.S. patent that covers this product with a current expiration date in 2037.

DEXTENZA (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) 0.4 mg for allergic conjunctivitis

​

We have licenses to U.S. patents, and certain foreign counterparts, with current expiration dates in 2030 that cover this product. We also own a U.S. patent that covers this product with a current expiration date in 2037 and a pending patent application in the United States, and certain foreign counterparts, with the potential to cover this product candidate that, if granted, is expected to expire in 2041.

ReSure Sealant

​

We have licenses to two U.S. patents that cover ReSure Sealant. One U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2024 and relating to the process of making and using hydrogel compositions, and one U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2032 and relates to certain features of the ReSure Sealant package.

Licenses

​

Incept, LLC

​

In January 2012, we entered into an amended and restated license agreement, which we refer to as either the Prior Agreement or Original License, with Incept under which we hold an exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable license under specified patents and technology owned or controlled by Incept to make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, sublicense, have sublicensed, offer for sublicense and import, products delivered to or around the human eye for diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic purposes relating to all human ophthalmic diseases or conditions. This license covers a significant portion of the patent rights and the technology for DEXTENZA, ReSure Sealant and our hydrogel platform technology product candidates. The agreement supersedes an April 2007 license agreement between us and Incept. Amar Sawhney, our former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, is a general partner of Incept.

​

On September 13, 2018, or the Effective Date, we entered into a second amended and restated license agreement, or the Second Amended Agreement, with Incept. The Second Amended Agreement amends and restates in full the Prior Agreement, to expand the scope of our intellectual property license and modify future intellectual property ownership and other rights thereunder.

​

License Rights; Ownership of Intellectual Property.    We and Incept have agreed to expand the field of use of the exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable license held by us under the Prior Agreement to include specified intellectual property rights and technology owned or controlled by Incept to make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, sublicense, have sublicensed, offer for sublicense and import, (i) consistent with the Prior Agreement, products delivered to or around the human eye for diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic purposes relating to all human ophthalmic diseases or conditions, or the Ophthalmic Field of Use, and (ii) as a result of the expansion of the scope of the Original License, products delivered for the treatment of acute post-surgical pain or for the treatment of ear, nose and/or throat diseases or conditions, subject to specified exceptions, or the Additional Field of Use. We and Incept have further agreed to expand the field of use of the Original License for certain patents, patent applications and other rights pertaining to shape-changing hydrogel formulations thereunder, or the Shape-Changing IP, to include all fields except those involving the nerves and associated tissues specified in the Second Amended Agreement.

​

We will solely own, without a license to Incept, all intellectual property rights conceived solely by one or more individuals from our company, or the Company Individuals, after the Effective Date, subject to exceptions specified therein. Subject to certain exceptions specified in the Second Amended Agreement, Incept will own and license to the us (i) all intellectual property rights included in the Original License, or the Original IP, in the Ophthalmic Field of Use and the Additional Field of Use, (ii) intellectual property rights in the field of drug delivery conceived solely by the Company Individuals on or before the Effective Date, or Incept IP, and (iii) intellectual property rights in the field of

Table of Contents

drug delivery conceived by one or more Company Individuals jointly with one or more individuals from Incept, including Dr. Sawhney, or the Incept Individuals, after the Effective Date. These intellectual property rights are referred to as Joint IP, and, collectively with the Original IP and the Incept IP, as the Licensed IP.

​

Financial Terms. We and any of our sublicensees are obligated to pay Incept royalties as follows under the Second Amended Agreement: (i) consistent with the Prior Agreement, a royalty equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales by us or our affiliates of products, devices, materials, or components thereof, or Licensed Products, including or covered by Original IP, excluding the Shape-Changing IP, in the Ophthalmic Field of Use; (ii) a royalty equal to a mid-single-digit percentage of net sales by us or our affiliates of Licensed Products including or covered by Original IP, excluding the Shape-Changing IP, in the Additional Field of Use; and (iii) a royalty equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales by us or our affiliates of Licensed Products including or covered by Incept IP or Joint IP in the field of drug delivery. Royalty obligations under the Second Amended Agreement commence with the first commercial sale of a Licensed Product described above and terminate upon the expiration of the last-to-expire patents included in the Licensed IP, as applicable. Any sublicensee of us also will be obligated to pay Incept royalties on net sales of Licensed Products made by it and will be bound by the terms of the Second Amended Agreement to the same extent as us. Additionally, at its sole discretion, Incept may require, as a condition of any sublicense by us in the Additional Field of Use and in exchange for a reduction in the royalties owed on net sales of Licensed Products described above, payments equal to a mid-teen percentage of any upfront payment and, subject to certain conditions, other payments received by us from the sublicensee.

​

Patent Prosecution and Litigation. Incept will continue to have sole control and responsibility for ongoing prosecution of patents included in the Original IP, and we will have sole control and responsibility for ongoing prosecution of patents and patent applications included in or arising under the Incept IP or Joint IP. The parties have agreed to work together in good faith to enter into a separate agreement under which, subject to certain limitations, we would assume control of the prosecution of patents and patent applications included in or arising under the Shape-Changing IP. We have the right, subject to certain conditions, to bring suit against third parties who infringe the patents included in the Original IP in the Ophthalmic Field of Use or the Additional Field of Use, patents included in the Incept IP in the drug delivery filed, patents included in the Joint IP in the drug delivery field, and patents included in the Shape-Changing IP in all fields except as described above. We have also agreed, if requested by Incept, to enter into a joint defense and prosecution agreement for the purpose of allowing the parties to share confidential and attorney-client privileged information regarding the possible infringement of one or more patents covered by the Second Amended Agreement. We are responsible for all costs incurred in prosecuting any infringement action it brings.

​

Term and Termination. The Second Amended Agreement will expire on the later of (i) the expiration or disclaimer by us of the last valid claim of an issued and unexpired patent included in the Licensed IP or (ii) the final unappealable rejection or abandonment of the last pending patent application arising under the Licensed IP. Either party may terminate the Second Amended Agreement in the event of the other party’s insolvency, bankruptcy, or comparable proceedings, or if the other party materially breaches the agreement and does not cure such breach during a specified cure period.

​

AffaMed License Agreement

​

On October 29, 2020, we entered into the AffaMed License Agreement with AffaMed for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA regarding ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery and allergic conjunctivitis, or collectively, the DEXTENZA Field, and for PAXTRAVA, or collectively with DEXTENZA, the AffaMed Licensed Products, regarding OAG and OHT, or collectively, the TIC Field and, with the DEXTENZA Field, each a Field, in each case in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea, and the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or collectively, the Territories. We retain development and commercialization rights for the AffaMed Licensed Products in the rest of the world.

​

Under the AffaMed License Agreement, we granted AffaMed (i) a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicensable license under certain of our intellectual property rights and know-how to use the AffaMed Licensed Products in connection with specified activities in accordance with a development plan agreed between the parties and (ii) an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, non-transferable (subject to specified exceptions), license under certain of our intellectual property rights and know-how to commercialize the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Field in the Territories. We have further agreed not to, and to cause its affiliates or agents not to, develop or commercialize in the Territories (i) the AffaMed Licensed Products outside of the applicable Fields and (ii) any other product containing

Table of Contents

the same active pharmaceutical ingredients as the AffaMed Licensed Products and administered into the anterior chamber of the eye, in each case without AffaMed’s prior written consent. AffaMed has agreed not to, and to cause its affiliates or agents not to, engage in the development, manufacture, or commercialization of any competing product in the Territories.

​

Under the terms of the AffaMed License Agreement, we received upfront payments and we also became eligible to receive additional payments upon the achievement of certain development and commercial milestones. There can be no guarantee, however, that any of the remaining milestones will be achieved. We are also entitled to receive tiered, escalating royalties on the net sales of the AffaMed Licensed Products ranging from a low-teen to low-twenties percentage. Royalties under the AffaMed License Agreement are payable on an AffaMed Licensed Product-by-AffaMed Licensed Product and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and are subject to potential reductions in specified circumstances, subject to a specified floor.

​

Pursuant to the terms of the AffaMed License Agreement, we are generally responsible for expenses related to the development of the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories, provided that AffaMed (i) reimburse us a low-teen percentage of expenses incurred in connection with certain clinical trials conducted by us and designed to support marketing approval of the AffaMed Licensed Product by FDA or the European Medicines Agency, or the Global Studies; (ii) is solely responsible for expenses incurred in connection with territory-specific clinical trials that it conducts in furtherance of the development plan agreed between the parties in the applicable Fields in the Territories, or the Local Studies; and (iii) reimburse us in full for expenses incurred in connection with obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals of the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories. In the event AffaMed declines to participate in a Global Study or to conduct a Local Study in any jurisdiction in which we determine to conduct such a study, we are relieved of our obligation to provide AffaMed clinical data from such study, other than safety data, unless AffaMed subsequently reimburses us in the amounts described above plus a prespecified premium.

​

AffaMed is further obligated, at its sole cost and expense, to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories. The AffaMed License Agreement contemplates that the parties negotiate and enter into a future agreement requiring us to use commercially reasonable efforts to manufacture and supply finished drug products in sufficient quantity for clinical development and commercialization of the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories.

​

In accordance with its terms, the AffaMed License Agreement expires upon the expiration of the last royalty term for the last AffaMed Licensed Product in any applicable Field in the Territories. Either party may, subject to specified cure periods, terminate the AffaMed License Agreement in the event of the other party’s uncured breach. Either party may also terminate the AffaMed License Agreement under specified circumstances relating to the other party’s insolvency. During an established period following a change of control of us or our entry into a global licensing agreement that includes the Territories with a third party, we have the option to terminate the AffaMed License Agreement, subject to a specified notice period and the repayment of any costs and expenses incurred by AffaMed in connection with the AffaMed License Agreement, including upfront and milestone payments AffaMed has previously paid to us, at a prespecified premium. AffaMed has the right to terminate the AffaMed License Agreement at any time following the completion of a Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate PAXTRAVA.

​

Competition

​

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, and compounding pharmacies. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. Many of our potential competitors 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. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for,

Table of Contents

our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

​

The key competitive factors affecting the success of each of our product candidates, if approved for marketing, are likely to be efficacy, safety, method and frequency of administration, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

​

Because the active pharmaceutical ingredients in our product candidates are available on a generic basis, or are soon to be available on a generic basis, competitors will be able to offer and sell products with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as our products so long as these competitors do not infringe the patents that we license. For example, our licensed patents related to our intracanalicular insert product candidates largely relate to the hydrogel composition of the intracanalicular inserts and certain drug-release features of the intracanalicular inserts. As such, if a third party were able to design around the formulation and process patents that we license and create a different formulation using a different production process not covered by our licensed patents or patent applications, we would likely be unable to prevent that third party from manufacturing and marketing its product.

​

Competitors of AXPAXLI

​

Our intravitreal implant for the treatment of wet AMD will compete with anti-VEGF compounds administered in their current formulation and prescribed for the treatment of wet AMD as these agents can in some instances deliver three to four months or more of therapeutic effect. They include Lucentis, Eylea and Eylea HD, Beovu, Vabysmo and off-label use of the cancer therapy Avastin. Multiple companies, although all in early stages of development, are exploring ways to deliver anti-VEGF products in a sustained-release fashion, including Regeneron which received approval for its 8mg version of Eylea in August 2023; Clearside Biomedical, which is pursuing a TKI (axitinib) administered into the suprachoroidal space; Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, which is pursuing a sustained-release bioerodible device containing a TKI (vorolanib) using its Durasert technology; Aerie Pharmaceuticals, which is pursuing development of a four to six month TKI implant (axitinib) using its Print® manufacturing technology; and Kodiak Sciences, which is pursuing sustained release therapies based on its anti-VEGF biopolymer conjugate technology. In October 2021, Genentech received approval for Susvimo which utilizes the company’s port delivery system for delivery of ranibizumab but has recently launched a voluntary recall of the product due to manufacturing issues. In addition, there are several companies pursuing gene therapy to treat retinal diseases including Adverum Biotechnologies, and REGENXBIO. There also are a number of companies with products in development targeting the inhibition of the complement system to address retinal diseases, specifically geographic atrophy, or GA, including Apellis Pharmaceuticals, IVERIC bio, now owned by Astellas Pharma, Annexion Biosciences, Novartis (Gyroscope Therapeutics), Genentech/Ionis and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, among others. Apellis received approval of SYFOVRE as the first approved treatment for GA in February 2023, and IVERIC bio’s Izervay was approved for the treatment of GA in August 2023.

​

Competitors of PAXTRAVA

​

Allergan, now owned by AbbVie, received approval in March 2020 of DURYSTA, a biodegradable bimatoprost intracameral implant consisting of a PGA and a biodegradable polymer matrix for the reduction of IOP in patients with OAG or OHT. Allergan purchased ForSight VISION5 who was conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial with the Helios insert, a sustained-release ocular insert placed below the eyelid that delivers bimatoprost for the treatment of glaucoma. In December 2023, Glaukos received approval for iDose, a prostaglandin analog indicated for the reduction of IOP in patients with OHT or OAG. In addition, several other companies have announced their intention to develop products for treatment of glaucoma using sustained-release therapy, although each of these is at an early stage of development. Mati Therapeutics has conducted a Phase 2 clinical trial with an intracanalicular insert for the treatment of glaucoma.

​

Competitors of OTX-DED and OTX-CSI

​

A number of therapies are currently available for the treatment of dry eye disease in the United States. The most commonly used treatments for dry eye disease in the United States are over-the-counter eye drops, often referred to as “artificial tears,” and there are three FDA-approved prescription eye drop therapies: Restasis, Xiidra and Cequa. Artificial tears are intended to supplement insufficient tear production or improve tear film instability but are primarily saline-based and provide only temporary relief. Restasis and Cequa, both calcineurin inhibitor immunosuppressants, and Xiidra, a LFA-1 antagonist, address chronic inflammation associated with dry eye disease. Kala Pharmaceuticals

Table of Contents

received approval in 2020 and launched EYSUVIS, (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension) 0.25% for the short term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. EYSUVIS was sold to Alcon in July 2022. Oyster Point Pharma received approval in 2021 for TYRVAYA (varenicline solution) Nasal Spray, a cholinergic agonist indicated for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. Oyster Point was purchased by Viatris in November 2022. Other treatment options include ointments, gels, warm compresses, omega-3 fatty acid supplements and a number of medical devices. We are aware of many other companies developing therapies for dry eye disease, including Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Alcon, Aldeyra Therapeutics, Allergan, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Azura Ophthalmics, Bausch Health (Novaliq), HanAll BioPharma, Johnson & Johnson, Mitotech, Novartis, Parion Sciences, ReGenTree, Silk Technologies, Sylentis, TearSolutions, and TopiVert Pharma.

​

Competitors of DEXTENZA

​

Icon Biosciences, Inc. received FDA approval of DEXYCU in February 2018. DEXYCU is an injection of dexamethasone at the time of surgery into the posterior chamber of the eye (behind the iris) to treat inflammation associated with cataract surgery. Icon Biosciences Inc. was subsequently bought by pSvidia Corporation in March 2018 and, at the same time, the new entity was renamed Eyepoint. Eyepoint launched DEXYCU commercially in the first quarter of 2019. DEXYCU lost separate government reimbursement as of January 1, 2023 and is no longer actively marketed. OMIDRIA, purchased by Rayner Surgical Group Limited, is a prescription medication used during cataract surgery. According to the OMIDRIA website, this product helps the black part in the center of your eye (pupil) stay open (dilated) during cataract surgery and decreases eye pain after surgery.

​

Government Regulation

​

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

​

Review and Approval of Drugs and Biologics in the United States

​

In the United States, the FDA approves and regulates drugs under the FDCA and related regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Biological products are licensed for marketing under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and subject to regulation under the FDCA and related regulations, and other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products is referred to as a sponsor. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug or biological product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

Preclinical Studies

​

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the investigational product for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

​

Companies usually must complete some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the investigational product and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the candidate product and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the candidate product does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

​

The IND and IRB Processes

​

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their voluntary informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

​

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any new drug or biologic that is not the subject of an approved NDA or BLA. In support of a request for an IND, sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to assure the safety and rights of patients and to help assure that the quality of the investigation will be adequate to permit an evaluation of the drug’s effectiveness and safety

Table of Contents

and of the biological product’s safety, purity and potency. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.

​

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

​

The FDA’s primary objectives in reviewing an IND are to assure the safety and rights of patients and to help assure that the quality of the investigation will be adequate to permit an evaluation of the drug’s effectiveness and safety and of the biological product’s safety, purity and potency. The decision to terminate development of an investigational drug or biological product may be made by either a health authority body such as the FDA, an IRB or ethics committee, or by us for various reasons. Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

​

Reporting Clinical Trial Results

​

Under the PHSA, sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs and biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. The NIH’s Final Rule on registration and reporting requirements for clinical trials became effective in 2017.

​

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

​

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application.

​

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

​

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its investigational products available for expanded access; however, as required by amendments to the FDCA included in the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests with respect to product candidates in

Table of Contents

development to treat serious diseases or conditions, it must make that policy publicly available. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study for a covered investigational product; or 15 days after the investigational product receives designation from the FDA as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

​

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

​

Human Clinical Studies in Support of an NDA or BLA

​

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

​

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

​

​

​

​

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA or BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials, typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials, such as to verify clinical benefit in the case of products approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting mandatory Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of FDA approval for products.

​

A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase, and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Moreover, as noted above, a pivotal trial is a clinical trial that is believed to satisfy FDA requirements for the evaluation of a product candidate’s safety and efficacy such that it can be used, alone or with other pivotal or non-pivotal trials, to support regulatory approval. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need.

​

Table of Contents

In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress began requiring sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.

​

In June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s recently updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

​

Clinical Trials Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval

​

We generally plan to conduct our later stage and pivotal clinical trials of our product candidates in the United States. Nonetheless, in connection with our clinical development program, we may have trial sites outside the United States. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign trials are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND trials.

​

The acceptance by the FDA of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of US approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

​

In addition, even where the foreign trial data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the trial is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted.

​

Interactions with FDA During the Clinical Development Program

​

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, the sponsor will continue to have interactions with the FDA. Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product candidate; and any clinically important increase in the occurrence of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

​

In addition, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. Specifically, sponsors may meet with the FDA prior to the submission of an IND (pre-IND meeting), at the

Table of Contents

end of Phase 2 clinical trial (EOP2 meeting) and before an NDA or BLA is submitted (pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting). Meetings at other times may also be requested. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-NDA/pre-BLA meetings, as well as end of phase meetings such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product, including for example meetings to facilitate early consultations on the use of a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been previously used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues, which should be limited to no more than two focused topics and should not require input from more than three disciplines or Divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.

​

These meetings provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date with the FDA and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. For example, at an EOP2 meeting, a sponsor may discuss its Phase 2 clinical results and present its plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) that it believes will support the approval of the new product. Such meetings may be conducted in person, via teleconference/videoconference or written response only with minutes reflecting the questions that the sponsor posed to the FDA and the FDA’s responses. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. From a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure.

​

Special Protocol Assessment Agreements

​

A Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, agreement is an agreement between a sponsor and the FDA on the design and size of studies and clinical trials that can be used for approval of a drug or biological product. The FDA’s guidance on such agreements states that an agreement may not be changed by the sponsor or the agency unless through a written agreement of the two entities or if FDA determines there is a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the drug or the safety, potency or purity of the biologic product. The protocols that are eligible for SPA agreements are: animal carcinogenicity protocols, final product stability protocols and clinical protocols for Phase 3 trials where the data will form the primary basis for an efficacy claim.

​

The FDA may meet with sponsors, provided certain conditions are met, for the purpose of reaching an SPA agreement on the design and size of clinical trials intended to form the primary basis of an efficacy claim in a marketing application. If a sponsor makes a reasonable written request to meet with the FDA for the purpose of reaching agreement on the design and size of a clinical trial, then the FDA will meet with the sponsor. If an agreement is reached, the FDA will reduce the agreement to writing and make it part of the administrative record. An agreement may not be changed by the sponsor or FDA after the trial begins, except with the written agreement of the sponsor and FDA, or if the director of the FDA reviewing division determines that “a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the investigational product was identified after the testing began. If a sponsor and the FDA meet regarding the design and size of a clinical trial and the parties cannot agree that the trial design is adequate to meet the goals of the sponsor, the FDA will clearly state the reasons for the disagreement in a letter to the sponsor.

​

Manufacturing and Other Regulatory Requirements

​

Concurrently with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies, develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product candidate in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the finished product. 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.

​

Specifically, the FDA’s regulations require that pharmaceutical products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports

Table of Contents

and returned or salvaged products. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceuticals are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies, and they are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. The FDA’s regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved product.

​

The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. 

​

Pediatric Studies

​

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, applications and certain types of supplements to applications must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product 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. The sponsor must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an EOP2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The sponsor and the FDA must reach agreement on a final plan. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs.

​

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, the FDA must send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. It further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although the FDA has recently taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. The FDA also maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

​

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

​

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

Table of Contents

​

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

​

If we obtain favorable results in our clinical trials, we plan to submit NDAs for our product candidates under Section 505(b)(2).

​

Acceptance and Review of NDAs and BLAs

​

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, safety updates, patent information, abuse information and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA as part of an application requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of a drug product and the safety, potency and purity of the biological product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The fee required for the submission and review of an application under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, is substantial (for example, for FY2024 this application fee is approximately $4.0 million), and the sponsor of an approved application is also subject to an annual program fee, which for FY2024 is currently set at $416,734 per eligible prescription product. These fees are typically adjusted annually, and exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the sponsor is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

​

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. Typically, an RTF will be based on administrative incompleteness, such as clear omission of information or sections of required information; scientific incompleteness, such as omission of critical data, information or analyses needed to evaluate safety and efficacy or provide adequate directions for use; or inadequate content, presentation, or organization of information such that substantive and meaningful review is precluded. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

​

After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. The FDA reviews the application to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, whether it has an acceptable purity profile and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application that is a new molecular entity, and six months from the filing date for an application with “priority review.” The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the sponsor to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of an application to extend beyond the PDUFA target action date.

​

In connection with its review of an application, the FDA will typically submit information requests to the sponsor and set deadlines for responses thereto. The FDA will also conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

Table of Contents

​

The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with IND and GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, a sponsor may incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.

​

Additionally, the FDA may refer an application, including applications for novel product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA or its advisory committee may interpret data differently than the sponsor interprets the same data. The FDA may also re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the sponsor during the review process.

​

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the application must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the application without a REMS.

​

Decisions on NDAs and BLAs

​

The FDA reviews a sponsor to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The term “substantial evidence” is defined under the FDCA as “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the product involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the product will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.”

​

The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. This approach was subsequently endorsed by Congress in 1998 with legislation providing, in pertinent part, that “If FDA determines, based on relevant science, that data from one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation and confirmatory evidence (obtained prior to or after such investigation) are sufficient to establish effectiveness, FDA may consider such data and evidence to constitute substantial evidence.” This modification to the law recognized the potential for FDA to find that one adequate and well controlled clinical investigation with confirmatory evidence, including supportive data outside of a controlled trial, is sufficient to establish effectiveness. In December 2019, FDA issued draft guidance further explaining the studies that are needed to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness. The FDA has not yet finalized that guidance.

​

After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendations, if any, and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA will issue either a CRL or an approval letter. To reach this determination, the FDA must determine that the drug is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety and efficacy in the NDA or BLA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks. In

Table of Contents

connection with this assessment, the FDA review team will assemble all individual reviews and other documents into an “action package,” which becomes the record for FDA review. The review team then issues a recommendation, and a senior FDA official makes a decision.

​

A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time- consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six-month extension to respond. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. The FDA has taken the position that a CRL is not final agency action making the determination subject to judicial review. For those seeking to challenge FDA’s CRL decision, the FDA has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution.

​

An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. That is, the approval will be limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, 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 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 trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

​

Under the Ensuring Innovation Act, which was signed into law in April 2021, the FDA must publish action packages summarizing its decisions to approve new drugs and biologics within 30 days of approval of such products. To date, CRLs are not publicly available documents.

​

Accelerated Approval Pathway

​

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

​

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

​

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate

Table of Contents

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

​

With passage of FDORA, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed; and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit. Further, FDORA requires the FDA to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval.

​

In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The guidance provides that although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. While this guidance is currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval.

​

Post-Approval Regulation

​

Drugs and biologics manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

​

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

​

A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

​

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or

Table of Contents

imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

​

​

​

​

​

​

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the HHS, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic.

​

It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products and product candidates in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products and product candidates in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.

​

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to a variety of federal and state laws, the most recent of which is still in the process of being phased into the U.S. supply chain and regulatory framework. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, was the first federal law to set minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states and to regulate the distribution of drug samples. Today, both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Congress more recently enacted the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, which made significant amendments to the FDCA, including by replacing certain provisions from the PDMA pertaining to wholesale distribution of prescription drugs with a more comprehensive statutory scheme. The DSCSA now requires uniform national standards for wholesale distribution and, for the first time, for third-party logistics providers; it also provides for preemption of certain state laws in the areas of licensure and prescription drug traceability.

​

Generic Drugs and Regulatory Exclusivity

​

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs and it also enacted Section 505(b)(2). To obtain approval of a generic drug, a sponsor must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug, or RLD.

Table of Contents

​

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD.

​

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, FDA has consistently taken the position that an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. This interpretation was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, a generic or follow-on drug application may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the sponsor may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

​

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the sponsor and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosage forms, route of administration or combination of ingredients. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; rather, this three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active ingredient.

​

Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, a sponsor submitting a traditional NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

​

As part of the submission of an NDA or certain supplemental applications, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the sponsor’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. The FDA’s regulations governing patient listings were largely codified into law with enactment of the Orange Book Modernization Act in January 2021. When an ANDA sponsor files its application with the FDA, the sponsor is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book. Specifically, the ANDA sponsor must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA sponsor is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the sponsor also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA sponsor would.

​

If the generic drug or follow-on drug sponsor does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new generic product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA sponsor has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the sponsor must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA owner and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA owner and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the

Table of Contents

FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earliest of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent and a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA sponsor.

​

Regulatory Exclusivity Governing Biologics

​

When a biological product is licensed for marketing by FDA with approval of a BLA, the product may be entitled to certain types of market and data exclusivity barring FDA from approving competing products for certain periods of time. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA. The BPCIA amended the PHSA to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Since enactment of this statute, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilar products.

​

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for a product that is “biosimilar to” a previously approved biological product, which the statute refers to as a “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and the proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. The biosimilar sponsor may demonstrate that its product is biosimilar to the reference product on the basis of data from analytical studies, animal studies and one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. In addition, the sponsor must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the conditions of use on the label, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity and potency.

​

For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find not only that the product is biosimilar to the reference product but also that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product such that the two products may be switched without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. Following approval of the interchangeable biosimilar product, the FDA may not grant interchangeability status for any second biosimilar until one year after the first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar product. In December 2022, Congress clarified through FDORA that FDA may approve multiple first interchangeable biosimilar biological products so long as the products are all approved on the first day on which such a product is approved as interchangeable with the reference product. 

​

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, however, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of their product. There have been recent government proposals to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period, but none has been enacted to date. At the same time, since passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, which address pharmacy practices involving biosimilar products.

​

Pediatric Exclusivity

​

Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of exclusivity. For drug products, the six-month exclusivity may be attached to the term of any existing patent or regulatory exclusivity, including the orphan exclusivity and regulatory exclusivities available under the Hatch-Waxman Act. For biologic products, the six-month period may be attached to any existing regulatory exclusivities but not to any patent terms. The conditions for pediatric exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new product in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric clinical trials, and the sponsor agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested clinical trials within the statutory timeframe. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is

Table of Contents

deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patents that cover the product are extended by six months. Although this is not a patent term extension, it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. With regard to patents, the six-month pediatric exclusivity period will not attach to any patents for which an ANDA or 505(b)(2) sponsor submitted a paragraph IV patent certification, unless the NDA sponsor or patent owner first obtains a court determination that the patent is valid and infringed by the proposed product.

​

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

​

In the United States, a patent claiming a new product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch Waxman Act, which permits a patent extension of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. Assuming grant of the patent for which the extension is sought, the restoration period for a patent covering a product is typically one half the time between the effective date of the IND involving human beings and the submission date of the NDA or BLA, plus the time between the submission date of the application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date in the United States. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension in consultation with the FDA.

​

Review and Approval of Medical Devices in the United States

​

Medical devices in the United States are strictly regulated by the FDA. Under the FDCA, a medical device is defined as an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is, among other things: intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals; or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes. This definition provides a clear distinction between a medical device and other FDA regulated products such as drugs. If the primary intended use of the product is achieved through chemical action or by being metabolized by the body, the product is usually a drug. If not, it is generally a medical device.

​

Unless an exemption applies, a new medical device may not be marketed in the United States unless and until it has been cleared through filing of a 510(k) premarket notification, or 510(k), or approved by the FDA pursuant to a PMA application. The information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain clearance or approval to market a new medical device varies depending on how the medical device is classified by the FDA. Medical devices are classified into one of three classes on the basis of the controls deemed by the FDA to be necessary to reasonably ensure their safety and effectiveness.

​

Class I devices are low-risk devices for which reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness can be provided by adherence to the FDA’s general controls for medical devices, which include applicable portions of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events and malfunctions and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising and promotional materials. Many Class I devices are exempt from premarket regulation; however, some Class I devices require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process.

​

Class II devices are moderate-risk devices and are subject to the FDA’s general controls, and any other special controls, such as performance standards, post-market surveillance, and FDA guidelines, deemed necessary by the FDA to provide reasonable assurance of the devices’ safety and effectiveness. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for Class II devices are accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification procedure, although some Class II devices are exempt from the 510(k) requirements. Premarket notifications are subject to user fees, unless a specific exemption applies.

​

Table of Contents

Class III devices are deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk, such as those for which reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness cannot be assured solely by the general controls and special controls described above and that are life-sustaining or life-supporting. A PMA application must provide valid scientific evidence, typically extensive preclinical and clinical trial data and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications (and supplemental PMA applications) are subject to significantly higher user fees than are 510(k) premarket notifications.

​

510(k) Premarket Notification

​

To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, which is a previously cleared 510(k) device or a pre-amendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA application. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance pathway usually takes from three to 12 months from the date the application is submitted and filed with the FDA, but it can take significantly longer and clearance is never assured. The FDA has issued guidance documents meant to expedite review of a 510(k) and facilitate interactions between the sponsor and the FDA. To demonstrate substantial equivalence, a manufacturer must show that the device has the same intended use as a predicate device and the same technological characteristics, or the same intended use and different technological characteristics and does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness than the predicate device.

​

Most 510(k)s do not require clinical data for clearance, but the FDA may request such data.

​

The FDA seeks to review and act on a 510(k) within 90 days of submission, but it may take longer if the agency finds that it requires more information to review the 510(k). If the FDA determines that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the subject device may be marketed. However, if the FDA concludes that a new device is not substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the new device will be classified in Class III and the manufacturer will be required to submit a PMA application to market the product. Devices of a new type that the FDA has not previously classified based on risk are automatically classified into Class III by operation of section 513(f)(1) of the FDCA, regardless of the level of risk they pose. To avoid requiring PMA review of low- to moderate-risk devices classified in Class III by operation of law, Congress enacted section 513(f)(2) of the FDCA. This provision allows the FDA to classify a low- to moderate-risk device not previously classified into Class I or II, a process known as the de novo process. A company may apply directly to the FDA for classification of its device as de novo or may submit a de novo petition within 30 days of receiving a not substantially equivalent determination.

​

Modifications to a 510(k)-cleared medical device may require the submission of another 510(k). Modifications to a 510(k)-cleared device frequently require the submission of a traditional 510(k), but modifications meeting certain conditions may be candidates for FDA review under a Special 510(k). If a device modification requires the submission of a 510(k), but the modification does not affect the intended use of the device or alter the fundamental technology of the device, then summary information that results from the design control process associated with the cleared device can serve as the basis for clearing the application. A Special 510(k) allows a manufacturer to declare conformance to design controls without providing new data. When the modification involves a change in material, the nature of the “new” material will determine whether a traditional or Special 510(k) is necessary.

​

Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared product that would constitute a major change in its intended use or any change that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device may, in some circumstances, requires the submission of a PMA application, if the change raises complex or novel scientific issues or the product has a new intended use. A manufacturer may be required to submit extensive pre-clinical and clinical data depending on the nature of the changes.

​

The FDA requires every manufacturer to make the determination regarding the need for a new 510(k) submission in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer’s decision. If the FDA disagrees with the manufacturer’s determination and requires new 510(k) clearances or PMA application approvals for modifications to previously cleared products for which the manufacturer concluded that new clearances or approvals are unnecessary, the manufacturer may be required to cease marketing or distribution of the products or to recall the modified product until it obtains clearance or approval, and the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. In addition, the FDA is currently evaluating the 510(k) process and may make substantial changes to industry requirements.

​

Table of Contents

Premarket Approval Application

​

The PMA application process for approval to market a medical device is more complex, costly, and time- consuming than the 510(k) clearance procedure. A PMA application must be supported by extensive data, including technical information regarding device design and development, preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and controls information and labeling information that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After a PMA application is submitted, the FDA has 45 days to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If the PMA application is complete, the FDA will file the PMA application. If the FDA accepts the application for filing, the agency will begin an in-depth substantive review of the application. By statute, the FDA has 180 days to review the application although, generally, review of the application often takes between one and three years, and may take significantly longer. If the FDA has questions, it will likely issue a first major deficiency letter within 150 days of filing. It may also refer the PMA application to an FDA advisory panel for additional review, and will conduct a preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facility to ensure compliance with the QSR, either of which could extend the 180-day response target. In addition, the FDA may request additional information or request the performance of additional clinical trials in which case the PMA application approval may be delayed while the trials are conducted and the data acquired are submitted in an amendment to the PMA. Even with additional trials, the FDA may not approve the PMA application.

​

If the FDA’s evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter authorizing commercial marketing or an approvable letter that usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval. If the FDA’s evaluations are not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA application or issue a not approvable letter. The PMA application process, including the gathering of clinical and nonclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years, and the process can be expensive and uncertain. Moreover, even if the FDA approves a PMA application, the FDA may approve the device with an indication that is narrower or more limited than originally sought. The FDA can impose post-approval conditions that it believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution. After approval of a PMA application, a new PMA application or PMA application supplement may be required for a modification to the device, its labeling, or its manufacturing process. PMA application supplements often require submission of the same type of information as an initial PMA application, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the approved PMA application and may or may not require as extensive technical or clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel. The time for review of a PMA application supplement may vary depending on the type of change, but it can be lengthy. In addition, in some cases the FDA might require additional clinical data.

​

PMA applications are subject to an application fee. For federal fiscal year 2024, the standard fee is $483,560 and the small business fee is $120,890.

​

Investigational Device Exemption

​

A clinical trial is typically required for a PMA application and, in a small percentage of cases, the FDA may require a clinical study in support of a 510(k) submission. A manufacturer that wishes to conduct a clinical study involving the device is subject to the FDA’s IDE regulation. The IDE regulation distinguishes between significant and non-significant risk device studies and the procedures for obtaining approval to begin the study differ accordingly. Also, some types of studies are exempt from the IDE regulations. A significant risk device presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject. Significant risk devices are devices that are substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or treating disease or in preventing impairment to human health. Studies of devices that pose a significant risk require both FDA and an IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study. Non-significant risk devices are devices that do not pose a significant risk to the human subjects. A non-significant risk device study requires only IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study.

​

An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. An IDE application is considered approved 30 days after it has been received by the FDA, unless the FDA otherwise informs the sponsor prior to 30 calendar days from the date of receipt, that the IDE is approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. The FDA typically grants IDE approval for a specified number of subjects to be enrolled at specified study centers. The clinical trial must be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including but not limited to the FDA’s IDE regulations and GCP. The investigators must obtain subject informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan

Table of Contents

and study protocol, control the disposition of investigational devices, and comply with all reporting and record keeping requirements. A clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by the FDA, the IRB or the sponsor at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to the study participants outweigh the benefits of participation in the trial. Approval of an IDE does not bind the FDA to accept the results of the trial as sufficient to prove the product’s safety and efficacy, even if the trial meets its intended success criteria.

​

Post-Marketing Restrictions and Enforcement

​

After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include but are not limited to:

​

​

​

​

Under the FDA medical device reporting, or MDR, regulations, medical device manufacturers are required to report to the FDA information that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or a similar device of such manufacturer were to recur. The decision to file an MDR involves a judgment by the manufacturer. If the FDA disagrees with the manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can take enforcement action.

​

Additionally, the FDA has the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. The authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is reasonable probability that the device would cause serious injury or death. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to the FDA within 10 working days after the recall is initiated.

​

The failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

To ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, medical device manufacturers are subject to market surveillance and periodic, pre-scheduled and unannounced inspections by the FDA, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of subcontractors.

​

Review and Approval of Combination Products in the United States

​

​

​

​

​

The FDA has established an Office of Combination Products to serve as a focal point for combination product issues and for medical product classification and assignment issues for agency staff and industry. That office issues guidance and regulations to clarify the regulation of combination products, and is responsible for assigning products to an FDA center for premarket review and regulation where their classification or assignment is unclear or in dispute. Combination products are assigned to an FDA center based on a determination of the “primary mode of action” or PMOA of the combination product. The FDCA defines PMOA as “the single mode of action of a combination product that provides the most important therapeutic action of the combination product.” For example, if the PMOA of a device-biological combination product is attributable to the biological product, the FDA Division responsible for premarket review of that biological product would have primary jurisdiction for the combination product. One investigational application is generally sufficient for a combination product, but that application must include all information on the entire combination product. In most cases, the type of investigational application is that typically required by the lead center. Thus, if the drug constituent part of a drug/device combination product provides the PMOA, the investigation would be under an IND.

​

Federal and State Data Privacy Laws

​

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, the HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI, used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them. Our clinical trials are regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general

Table of Contents

(along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

​

At the state level, California has enacted legislation that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020 and requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allow for a new cause of action for data breaches. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA may apply to some of our business activities.

​

In addition to California, at least eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data (which includes health data in some cases). Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2023 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2024 and beyond, including New Hampshire and New Jersey. Other states will be considering these laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, Washington state passed a health privacy law in 2023 that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data and additional states (including Vermont) are considering such legislation for 2024. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

​

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree 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. To the extent that any product candidates we may develop, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

​

Review and Approval of Medical Products in the European Union

​

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, the company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other

Table of Contents

countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

​

Non-clinical Studies

​

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (GLP) as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products – e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

​

Clinical Trial Approval

​

On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the European Union, or EU Member State, will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

​

Beyond streamlining the process, the new Regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors, and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

​

The Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

​

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the European Union at the EU Clinical Trials Register.

​

Marketing Authorization

​

To obtain marketing approval of a drug under European Union regulatory systems, a sponsor must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA, either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all European Union member states. The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional.

​

Table of Contents

Under the centralized procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the CHMP, established at the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a drug. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. In this circumstance, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

​

The decentralized procedure is available to sponsors who wish to market a product in various European Union member states where such product has not received marketing approval in any European Union member states before. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more other, or concerned, member states of an assessment of an application performed by one member state designated by the sponsor, known as the reference member state. Under this procedure, a sponsor submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labeling and package leaflet, to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 210 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report and related materials, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

​

If a member state cannot approve the assessment report and related materials on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

​

Conditional Approval

​

In particular circumstances, European Union legislation (Article 14–a Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/5 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables sponsors to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if (1) the product candidate is intended for the treatment, prevention or medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases; (2) the product candidate is intended to meet unmet medical needs of patients; (3) a marketing authorization may be granted prior to submission of comprehensive clinical data provided that the benefit of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required; (4) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, and (5) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization, but applicants can also request EMA to conduct an accelerated assessment, for instance in cases of unmet medical needs.

​

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

​

A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years in principle. The marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the European Union Member State. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the European Union Member States may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year period of marketing authorization. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the

Table of Contents

European Union market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing European Union Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

​

Regulatory Requirements after a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained

​

In case an authorization for a medicinal product in the European Union is obtained, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:

​

​

​

​

Regulatory Data Protection in the European Union

​

In the European Union, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 repeats this entitlement for medicinal products authorized in accordance the centralized authorization procedure. Data exclusivity prevents sponsors for authorization of generics of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abridged) application for a period of eight years. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be placed on the European Union market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

​

Pediatric Exclusivity

​

If a sponsor obtains a marketing authorization in all European Union Member States, or a marketing authorization granted in the centralized procedure by the European Commission, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of the Supplementary Protection Certificate, or SPC, or alternatively a one year extension of the regulatory market exclusivity from ten to eleven years, as selected by the marketing authorization holder.

​

Patent Term Extensions

​

The European Union also provides for patent term extension through SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining a SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity

Table of Contents

for a drug. In certain circumstances, these periods may be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained. Although SPCs are available throughout the European Union, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the European Union.

​

Reimbursement and Pricing of Prescription Pharmaceuticals

​

In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments to those in the United States may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and the European Union, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, pharmaceutical firms may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of the product to other available therapies.

​

Review and Approval of Medical Devices in the European Union

​

The European Union has adopted numerous directives and standards regulating, among other things, the design, manufacture, clinical trials, labeling, approval and adverse event reporting for medical devices. In the European Union, or the European Union, medical devices must comply with the Essential Requirements in Annex I to the currently applicable European Union Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC), or the Essential Requirements. Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix the CE Mark of Conformity to medical devices, without which they cannot be marketed or sold in the European Economic Area, or EEA, comprised of the European Union member states plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

​

To demonstrate compliance with the Essential Requirements a manufacturer must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. Except for low risk medical devices, where the manufacturer can issue a CE Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its products with the Essential Requirements, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a third-party organization designated by competent authorities of a European Union country to conduct conformity assessments, or a Notified Body. Notified Bodies are independent testing houses, laboratories, or product certifiers typically based within the European Union and authorized by the European member states to perform the required conformity assessment tasks, such as quality system audits and device compliance testing. The Notified Body would typically audit and examine the product’s Technical File and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of the product before issuing a CE Certificate of Conformity demonstrating compliance with the relevant Essential Requirements.

​

Medical device manufacturers must carry out a clinical evaluation of their medical devices to demonstrate conformity with the relevant Essential Requirements. This clinical evaluation is part of the product’s Technical File. A clinical evaluation includes an assessment of whether a medical device’s performance is in accordance with its intended use, and that the known and foreseeable risks linked to the use of the device under normal conditions are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended purpose. The clinical evaluation conducted by the manufacturer must also address any clinical claims, the adequacy of the device labeling and information (particularly claims, contraindications, precautions and warnings) and the suitability of related Instructions for Use. This assessment must be based on clinical data, which can be obtained from clinical studies conducted on the devices being assessed, scientific literature from similar devices whose equivalence with the assessed device can be demonstrated or both clinical studies and scientific literature.

​

With respect to implantable devices or devices classified as Class III in the European Union, the manufacturer must conduct clinical studies to obtain the required clinical data, unless relying on existing clinical data from similar devices can be justified. As part of the conformity assessment process, depending on the type of devices, the Notified Body will review the manufacturer’s clinical evaluation process, assess the clinical evaluation data of a representative sample of the device’s subcategory or generic group, or assess all the clinical evaluation data, verify the manufacturer’s assessment of that data and assess the validity of the clinical evaluation report and the conclusions drawn by the manufacturer.

​

Table of Contents

Even after a manufacturer receives a CE Certificate of Conformity enabling the CE mark to be placed on it products and the right to sell the products in the EEA countries, a Notified Body or a competent authority may require post-marketing studies of the products. Failure to comply with such requirements in a timely manner could result in the withdrawal of the CE Certificate of Conformity and the recall or withdrawal of the subject product from the European market.

​

A manufacturer must inform the Notified Body that carried out the conformity assessment of the medical devices of any planned substantial changes to the devices which could affect compliance with the Essential Requirements or the devices’ intended purpose. The Notified Body will then assess the changes and verify whether they affect the product’s conformity with the Essential Requirements or the conditions for the use of the devices. If the assessment is favorable, the Notified Body will issue a new CE Certificate of Conformity or an addendum to the existing CE Certificate of Conformity attesting compliance with the Essential Requirements. If it is not, the manufacturer may not be able to continue to market and sell the product in the EEA.

​

In the European Union, medical devices may be promoted only for the intended purpose for which the devices have been CE marked. Failure to comply with this requirement could lead to the imposition of penalties by the competent authorities of the European Union Member States. The penalties could include warnings, orders to discontinue the promotion of the medical device, seizure of the promotional materials and fines. Promotional materials must also comply with various laws and codes of conduct developed by medical device industry bodies in the European Union governing promotional claims, comparative advertising, advertising of medical devices reimbursed by the national health insurance systems and advertising to the general public.

​

Additionally, all manufacturers placing medical devices in the market in the European Union are legally bound to report any serious or potentially serious incidents involving devices they produce or sell to the competent authority in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. In the European Union, manufacturers must comply with the European Union Medical Device Vigilance System. Under this system, incidents must be reported to the relevant authorities of the European Union countries, and manufacturers are required to take Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs, to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated with the use of a medical device that is already placed on the market. An incident is defined as any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labeling or the instructions for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to the death of a patient or user or of other persons or to a serious deterioration in their state of health. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device. FSCAs must be communicated by the manufacturer or its European Authorized Representative to its customers and to the end users of the device through Field Safety Notices.

​

The legal framework currently applicable for medical devices in the European Union was amended by Medical Devices Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/745) adopted in 2017, which we refer to as the MDR and which repeals and replaces the European Union Medical Devices Directive. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the European Economic Area, or EEA, member states, the MDR is directly applicable (i.e., without the need for adoption of EEA member State laws implementing them) in all EEA member states and is intended to eliminate current differences in the regulation of medical devices among EEA member states. The MDR, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EEA for medical and ensure a high level of safety and health.

​

The MDR became applicable on May 26, 2021 and will, among other things:

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

​

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU took place on January 31, 2020. The EU and the UK reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which we refer to as the Agreement and which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the EU and the UK will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the UK is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales. Under the 2023 “Windsor Framework” and related laws, the MHRA became responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britian and Northern Ireland), effective January 1, 2025. A single UK-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended) (HMR) is the primary legal instrument for the regulation of medicines in the UK. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

​

EU laws which have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation continue to be applicable as “retained EU law.” However, new legislation such as the (EU) Clinical Trials Regulation will not be applicable in Great Britain. Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the UK covering the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorizations, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval, and commercialization of our product candidates in the UK. For example, the UK is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorizations from the EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our product candidates in the UK. A new international recognition framework has been in place since January 1, 2024, whereby the MHRA will have regard to decisions on the approval of marketing authorizations made by the EMA and certain other regulators when determining an application for a new Great Britian marketing authorization.

​

General Data Protection Regulation

​

Many countries outside of the United States maintain rigorous laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the EEA, and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors.

​

The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States, and 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. 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 is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, invalidated the European Union-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the

Table of Contents

transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United States. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR.

​

Additionally, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The EU initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in December 2022 and the European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision will permit U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms.

​

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

​

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results.

​

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

​

Section 1833(t)(6) of the Social Security Act provides for temporary additional payments or “transitional pass-through payments” for certain drugs and biological agents. As originally enacted by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, this provision required Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to make additional payments to hospitals for current orphan drugs, as designated under section 526 of the FDCA; current drugs and biological agents and brachytherapy sources used for the treatment of cancer; and current radiopharmaceutical drugs and biological products. Transitional pass-through payments are also provided for certain new drugs, devices and biological agents that were not paid for as a hospital outpatient department service as of December 31, 1996, and whose cost is “not insignificant” in relation to the Outpatient Prospective Payment System, or OPPS, payment for the procedures or services associated with the new drug, device, or biological. Under the statute, transitional pass-through payments can be made for at least two years but not more than three years.

​

J-Codes are part of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II set of procedure codes. These codes are used by CMS and other managed care organizations to identify drugs that ordinarily cannot be self-administered by a patient. Lacrimal ophthalmic inserts containing dexamethasone, such as DEXTENZA, have a specific and permanent J-Code, J1096, that allows for a simpler and more convenient reimbursement process versus miscellaneous J-codes. Since its launch, DEXTENZA has been payable in ASCs and HOPDs separately from ophthalmic surgery via the transitional pass-through status under the J1096 J-Code. However, the pass-through status for J1096 ended on December 31, 2022. In November 2022, as part of the annual CMS rule-making cycle, the CY 2023 OPPS rule was finalized and provided that DEXTENZA would qualify under the criteria established for non-opioid pain

Table of Contents

management drugs as a surgical supply provision. This provision allows for continued separate payment of DEXTENZA in the ASC setting for 2023 but does not require separate payment for DEXTENZA in the HOPD setting.

​

CPT codes are part of the HCPCS Level I set of procedure codes which consists of codes that are used to report medical services and procedures furnished by physicians. These codes are also used by CMS and other managed care organizations. Drug-eluting intracanalicular inserts, such as DEXTENZA, have a procedure-specific and permanent Category 1 CPT code, 68841, used to facilitate reimbursement for the administration of inserts into the canaliculus. In 2023, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, or MPFS, for the insertion of DEXTENZA into the canaliculus was $32.53 in the ASCs and $38.29 in the physician’s office for unilateral insertion. In November 2023, the CY 2024 MPFS rule was finalized resulting in a marginal decrease in physician payments compared to 2023 to $31.43 in the ASCs and $37.33 in the physician’s office for unilateral insertion, due to a decrease in the conversion factor which CMS uses to translate the relative value units, or RVUs, of medical services into fee schedule payment amounts. The RVU for code 68841 was unchanged. 

​

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

​

Healthcare Law and Regulation

​

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

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ensuring compliance is time consuming and costly. Similar healthcare laws and regulations exist in the EU and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers and laws governing the privacy and security of personal information.

​

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

​

Healthcare Reform

​

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of drug and biologic products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for medical products and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

​

In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the PPACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for pharmaceutical products under government healthcare programs. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031. Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these Medicare sequester reductions have been suspended and reduced through the end of June 2022, with the full 2% cut resuming thereafter. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%.

​

Since enactment of the PPACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the PPACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the PPACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the PPACA are invalid as well.

Table of Contents

The U.S. Supreme Court heard this case on November 10, 2020 and, on June 17, 2021, dismissed this action after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

​

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the PPACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the PPACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the PPACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden rescinded those orders and issued a new executive order that directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit access to healthcare, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the PPACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and under the PPACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

​

Pharmaceutical Prices

​

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care.

​

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. The final rule is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, but at least six states (Vermont, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.

​

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Executive Order directs the HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” On September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.

​

More recently, on August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or

Table of Contents

enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

​

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.

​

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

​

Human Capital

​

As of December 31, 2023, we had 267 full-time employees. The following table provides an overview of the distribution of those employees:

​

​

We are committed to inclusion and diversity and believe that these are important elements of our culture that enables us to attract and retain a high quality workforce.

​

The development, attraction and retention of employees is a critical success factor for us for the execution of our business strategy and succession planning. To support the advancement of our employees, we offer training and development programs encouraging advancement from within and continue to fill our team with strong and experienced

Table of Contents

management talent. We leverage both formal and informal programs to identify, foster, and retain top talent at both the corporate and operating unit level.

​

We provide employee wages and benefits that we believe are competitive and consistent with the employee positions, skill levels, experience, knowledge and geographic location. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

​

We value the health, safety and wellbeing of our employees and their families. As an example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, which included allowing a number of our corporate employees to work remotely, as appropriate.

​

Our Corporate Information

​

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 2006. Our principal executive offices are located at 15 Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA 01730, and our telephone number is (781) 357-4000. Our manufacturing is located at 36 Crosby Drive, Suite 101, Bedford, MA 01730 and our research and development operations are located at 15 Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA 01730. Our website address is www.ocutx.com.

​

Available Information

We make available free of charge through our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. The information contained on, or that can be access through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

​

The following risk factors and other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including under the heading “Summary of Risk Factors” in this Annual Report, should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we presently deem less significant may also impair our business operations. Please see the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K captioned “Forward-Looking Statements” for a discussion of some of the forward-looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

​

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

​

We have a history of incurring significant losses. We expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

​

We have a history of incurring significant losses. Our net losses were $80.7 million and $71.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $697.6 million. We have financed our operations primarily through private placements of our preferred stock, public offerings and private placements of our common stock, borrowings under our credit facilities, including $82.5 million under a credit and security agreement, or the Barings Credit Agreement, with Barings Finance LLC, or Barings, as administrative agent, and the lenders party thereto, which we refer to as the Barings Credit Facility, the private placement of convertible notes in the aggregate principal amount of our $37.5 million, or the Convertible Notes, and sales of our products. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials, and the commercialization of DEXTENZA. Although we expect to continue to generate revenue from sales of DEXTENZA, we expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year.

Table of Contents

We anticipate we will incur substantial expenses if and as we:

Table of Contents

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Our development expenses will increase if:

For us to become and remain profitable, we will need to continue to successfully commercialize DEXTENZA and to successfully develop and commercialize other products with significant market potential. This will require us or our current or future collaborators to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including:

Even if we succeed in our commercialization efforts, we may never generate revenue that is sufficient to achieve profitability. We do not anticipate revenue from sales of DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery and ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis will be sufficient for us to become profitable for several years, if ever.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or commercialization efforts.

​

We expect to devote substantial financial resources to our ongoing and planned activities, particularly if and as we advance AXPAXLI, PAXTRAVA, OTX-DED and OTX-CSI through clinical development, and continue to commercialize DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery and for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. We expect to devote substantial financial resources as we conduct late-stage clinical trials for our product candidates, seek marketing approval for any such product candidate for which we obtain favorable pivotal clinical results, and commercialize any products for which we receive marketing approval. In addition, we plan to devote significant financial resources to conduct research and development of our

Table of Contents

other product candidates. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding to fully support our continuing and planned operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or commercialization efforts.

​

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash and cash equivalents of $195.8 million, outstanding debt with a principal amount of $82.5 million under the Barings Credit Facility, and $37.5 million aggregate principal amount of Convertible Notes plus accrued interest of $10.9 million. Based on our current operating plan, which includes estimates of anticipated cash inflows from DEXTENZA product sales and cash outflows from operating expenses and capital expenditures and reflects our observance of the minimum liquidity covenant of $20.0 million under the Barings Credit Agreement, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2023, plus the cash received from a private placement of our common stock in February 2024 of $325.0 million before deducting placement agent fees and other offering expenses, will enable us to fund our planned operating expenses, debt service obligations and capital expenditure requirements at least into 2028. These estimates are subject to various assumptions, including assumptions as to the revenues and expenses associated with the commercialization of DEXTENZA, the pace of our research and clinical development programs, the timing of commencement of dosing and enrollment of our clinical trials, and other aspects of our business. We have based our estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

​

Table of Contents

Conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials, seeking market approvals and commercializing products are time-consuming, expensive and uncertain processes that take years to complete. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval of products with the market potential sufficient to enable us to generate significant revenues from the sale of such products.  Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional financing to achieve our business objectives.  Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

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

​

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate product revenues sufficient to achieve profitability, we expect to finance our cash needs through equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements, royalty agreements, and marketing and distribution arrangements.  We do not have any committed external source of funds, although our license agreement with AffaMed provides for AffaMed’s reimbursement of certain clinical expenses incurred by us in connection with our collaboration and for our potential receipt of development and sales milestone payments and royalty payments.  To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity, preferred equity or convertible debt securities, our securityholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our existing securityholders’ rights as holders or beneficial owners of our common stock.  Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.  Our pledge of our assets as collateral to secure our obligations under the Barings Credit Facility pursuant to which we have a total borrowing capacity of $82.5 million, which has been fully drawn down, may limit our ability to obtain additional debt or other financing. 

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements, royalty agreements or marketing and distribution arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs, products or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements 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 products or product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. 

Our substantial indebtedness may limit cash flow available to invest in the ongoing needs of our business or otherwise affect our operations.

​

On August 2, 2023, we entered into the Barings Credit Agreement providing for the Barings Credit Facility in the aggregate principal amount of $82.5 million. Under the Barings Credit Facility we have $82.5 million, net of unamortized discount and fees, of outstanding principal indebtedness. Under the Barings Credit Agreement, we are permitted to make payments of interest and fees only through August 2029, at which time we will be required to repay the full principal amount in addition to any outstanding interest and fees. In addition, we are obligated to pay a fee, which we refer to as the Royalty Fee, in an amount equal to $82.5 million, reduced by the total amount of interest and principal prepayment fees paid by us and subject to further potential reductions as specified in the Barings Credit Agreement. We are required to pay the Royalty Fee in installments to Barings, for the benefit of the lenders, on a quarterly basis in an amount equal to three and one-half percent (3.5%) of the net sales of DEXTENZA occurring during such quarter, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations specified in the Barings Credit Agreement, until the Royalty Fee is paid in full. The Royalty Fee is due and payable upon a change of control of the company. The Royalty Fee may also be reduced if a change of control or a sale of all or substantially all of our assets occurs within the first twelve months of the term of the Barings Credit Agreement.

Our obligations under the Barings Credit Agreement are secured by all of our assets, including our intellectual property. The Barings Credit Facility includes negative covenants restricting us from making payments to the holders of our outstanding Convertible Notes, except in connection with a proposed conversion to equity and with respect to certain permitted expenses and requiring us to maintain a minimum liquidity amount of $20.0 million. The Barings Credit Agreement also includes customary affirmative and negative covenants.

In March 2019, we issued $37.5 million aggregate principal amount of issued and outstanding Convertible Notes. The Convertible Notes mature on a date 91 days following the maturity of the indebtedness under the Barings Credit

Table of Contents

Facility, and interest on the Convertible Notes is payable at maturity or if earlier converted, repurchased or redeemed pursuant to their terms. We could in the future incur additional indebtedness beyond such amounts, including by potentially amending the Barings Credit Agreement.

Our substantial debt combined with our other financial obligations and contractual commitments could have significant adverse consequences, including:

We intend to satisfy our current and future debt service obligations with our existing cash and cash equivalents, anticipated product revenue from DEXTENZA and funds from external sources. However, we may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to pay the amounts due under our existing debt. Funds from external sources may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all.

A failure to comply with conditions of our Barings Credit Agreement or the Convertible Notes could result in an event of default under those instruments. The Barings Credit Agreement and Convertible Notes also have cross-default provisions, pursuant to which a default under one instrument could cause a default in others. In an event of default, including upon the occurrence of an event that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business or operations, the amounts due under our Barings Credit Agreement or the Convertible Notes could accelerate. As a result, we may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to repay our indebtedness or to make any accelerated payments, and the lenders could seek to enforce security interests in the collateral securing such indebtedness.

We hold our cash and cash equivalents that we use to fund our operating expenses, debt service obligations, and capital expenditure requirements in deposit accounts that could be adversely affected if the financial institutions holding such funds fail.

We hold our cash and cash equivalents that we use to fund our operating expenses, debt service obligations, and capital expenditure requirements in deposit accounts at two financial institutions. The balances held in these accounts typically exceeds the standard deposit insurance limit of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. If a financial institution in which we hold such funds fails or is subject to significant adverse conditions in the financial or credit markets, we could be subject to a risk of loss of all or a portion of our uninsured funds or be subject to a delay in accessing all or a portion of such funds. Any such loss or lack of access to these funds could adversely impact our short-term liquidity and ability to meet our operating expense, debt service, and capital expenditure obligations.

For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, and the FDIC was appointed as receiver. During this time, deposits held at SVB were temporarily inaccessible to SVB’s customers. At the time SVB was closed by its regulators, we maintained a significant portion of our cash and cash equivalents in deposit accounts with SVB.  

Our cash and cash equivalents remain concentrated in a small number of financial institutions. If any of the financial institutions in which we hold cash or cash equivalents were to fail in the future, we cannot provide any assurances that any governmental agencies would take action to protect or provide access to our uninsured deposits, or a third party would assume the failing financial institution’s obligations, in a similar manner as occurred in connection with the closure, receivership, and sale of SVB, and we may lose or be unable to access some or all of the uninsured funds we are holding at such financial institution.

Table of Contents

We also maintain investment accounts with multiple financial institutions. If our access to our cash and cash equivalents in our deposit accounts is impaired, we may not be able to open new operating accounts or to sell investments or transfer funds from our investment accounts to new operating accounts on a timely basis sufficient to meet our operating expense, debt service, and capital expenditure obligations.

We might not be able to utilize a significant portion of our net operating loss carryforwards and research and development tax credit carryforwards.

As of December 31, 2023, we had net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards for federal and state income tax purposes of $482.6 million and $343.8 million, respectively. The federal and state NOLs generated for annual periods prior to January 1, 2018 begin to expire in 2026. Our federal NOLs generated for the years ended after December 31, 2018, which amounted to a total of $356.8 million, can be carried forward indefinitely. As of December 31, 2023, we also had available research and development tax credit carryforwards for federal and state income tax purposes of $15.4 million and $8.8 million, respectively, which begin to expire in 2026 and 2025, respectively. These NOL and tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset our future income tax liabilities. Even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes because, among other reasons, federal tax rates and the rules governing NOL carryforwards might change; state NOLs generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state; and the use of NOL carryforwards might become subject to annual limitations under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, and similar state provisions.

​

Risks Related to Product Development

​

Clinical trials of our product candidates may not be successful. If clinical trials of our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA or other regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce favorable results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be delayed or unable to complete, the development and commercialization of such product candidate and our business may be harmed.

​

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, including our lead product candidate AXPAXLI, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome.  A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing.  The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later stage clinical trials, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results and results from one completed clinical trial may not be replicated in a subsequent clinical trial with a similar study design.  Some of our completed studies were conducted with small patient populations, making it difficult to predict whether the favorable results that we observed in such studies will be repeated in larger and more advanced clinical trials. Some of our clinical trials also were conducted with different formulations than those that we are currently evaluating. For example, we are using a single optimized implant of AXPAXLI with a drug load of 450 µg of a more soluble form of axitinib in our SOL-1 trial and intend to use the same formulation in future clinical trials of AXPAXLI including our planned SOL-2 trial. As we have not evaluated this formulation in earlier trials, it may not demonstrate the efficacy or safety profile that we anticipate.

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.  The protocols for our clinical trials and other supporting information are subject to review by the FDA and regulatory authorities outside the United States.  However, the FDA is not obligated to comment on our trial protocols within any specified time period or at all or to affirmatively clear or approve our planned pivotal clinical trials.  Subject to a waiting period of 30 days, we could choose to initiate our pivotal clinical trials in the United States without waiting for any additional period for comments from the FDA. Although the FDA may provide comments or clear our clinical trial protocols, final determinations for marketing application approval are made after a complete review of a marketing application and are based on the entirety of the data in the new drug application. Furthermore, we are conducting our SOL-1 trial of AXPAXLI under a Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, agreed to by the FDA. An SPA agreement indicates concurrence by the FDA with the adequacy and acceptability of specific critical elements of the overall protocol design for a clinical trial intended to support a future marketing application, but it does not indicate FDA concurrence on every protocol detail. Moreover, the FDA

Table of Contents

retains significant discretion in interpreting the terms of an SPA agreement and the data and results from any trial that is the subject of an SPA agreement. An SPA agreement does not ensure the receipt of marketing approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities or that the approval process will be faster than conventional procedures.

We have devoted a significant portion of our financial resources and business efforts to the development of DEXTENZA and our product candidates.  We are currently investing substantial resources to advance the development of AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD and NPDR, PAXTRAVA for the treatment of OAG or OHT, OTX-CSI for the chronic treatment of dry eye disease, and OTX-DED for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. We currently have several ongoing clinical trials, including our SOL-1 trial, the HELIOS trial, and our Phase 2 clinical trial of PAXTRAVA. We also continue to wind down our post-trial monitoring and surveillance obligations in our Phase 1 clinical trials of AXPAXLI in wet AMD in Australia and the United States and our Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA in pediatric subjects following cataract surgery.

We have, however, experienced the uncertainty of clinical trials in our own development programs. In our Phase 2 clinical trial for OTX-CSI for the treatment of dry eye disease, for example, OTX-CSI did not meet the primary endpoint of the clinical trial. The trial was designed to evaluate safety, tolerability, durability, and efficacy of two different formulations of OTX-CSI by measuring signs and symptoms of dry eye disease in 140 subjects treated in both eyes over approximately 16 weeks (a 12-week study period, with an additional 4-week safety follow-up). The four groups evaluated in this study were: OTX-CSI for a shorter duration, OTX-CSI for a longer duration, vehicle insert for a longer duration and vehicle insert for a very short duration. The study did not show separation between the OTX-CSI treated subjects (both formulations) and the vehicle treated subjects (both formulations) for the primary endpoint of increased tear production at 12 weeks as measured by the Schirmer’s Test.

If clinical trials of any product candidate that we develop fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA or other regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce clear or favorable results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of such product candidate. We cannot accurately predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or whether our product candidates will receive marketing approval or reach successful commercialization. Our ability to generate product revenues sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on our development and commercialization of products with significant market potential. 

If we experience any of a number of possible unforeseen events in connection with our clinical trials, potential marketing approval or commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

​

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

Table of Contents

From time to time, we may decide to conduct clinical trials to assess subjects’ clinical response to treatment and choose not to power such trials to measure the applicable efficacy endpoints with statistical significance, as we did in our Phase 2 clinical trials of our former product candidate OTX-TP for the treatment of OAG or OHT. In addition, post-hoc analyses such as those that we performed on certain results of Phase 2 clinical trials of OTX-TP may not be predictive of success in future clinical trials, including as a result of differences in trial design.  Post-hoc analyses performed using an unlocked clinical trial database can also result in the introduction of bias and are given less weight by regulatory authorities than pre-specified analyses. 

The FDA may also require that New Drug Application, or NDA, submissions for our product candidates include pediatric data. Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA, a biological licensing application, or BLA, or supplement to an NDA or BLA for certain drugs and biological products must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. The applicable legislation in the European Union also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by this Committee. For any of our product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the United States or the European Union, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action.  

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, such as the FDA’s requirement that we provide pediatric data for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery prior and for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in connection with the approval of our NDA for DEXTENZA for those indications, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not favorable or are only modestly favorable or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals.  We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all.  Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. 

​

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

​

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates, or other product candidates that we might develop if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible subjects to participate in these trials as required by the FDA, the EMA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States.  Although there is a significant prevalence of disease in the areas of ophthalmology in which we are focused, we may nonetheless experience

Table of Contents

unanticipated difficulty with subject enrollment.  For example, in the third quarter of 2017, we initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of PAXTRAVA outside the United States.  After several months, after not enrolling any subjects, we closed this trial in the second quarter of 2018. Additionally, we intended to initiate our Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI outside the United States in 2018, but delays in enrollment prevented us from dosing subjects until the first quarter of 2019.

A variety of factors affect subject enrollment, including:

Delays can be more pronounced with later-stage clinical trials because they tend to be larger than early-stage trials. For example, enrollment in our Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate DEXTENZA in pediatric subjects following cataract surgery, to fulfill FDA post-approval regulatory requirements, proceeded more slowly than we had anticipated due to the relative scarcity of pediatric cataract surgical subjects. In addition, we may experience delays in enrollment due to the design of our trials. For example, to qualify for enrollment in the SOL-1 trial, participants receive two aflibercept injections in the screening period and would need to gain at least 10 ETDRS letters from the initial screening visit to Day 1 or achieve a visual acuity of approximately 20/20 or better at Day 1, in addition to satisfying other criteria. Enrollment delays may also arise in our SOL-1 trial due to a reluctance of physicians to enroll subjects in the trial given the novel design being used.

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of subjects in any of our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals.  Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which could cause the value of our common stock to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

If serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates or any other product candidates that we may develop, we may need to abandon or limit our development of such product candidates.

​

If any of our product candidates are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective.  

Table of Contents

Many compounds that initially showed promise in clinical or early-stage testing for treating ophthalmic disease have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound.  In addition, adverse events which had initially been considered unrelated to the study treatment may later be found to be caused by the study treatment. 

We may not be successful in our efforts to develop additional products and product candidates based on our bioresorbable hydrogel-based formulation technology ELUTYX.

​

We are currently directing most of our development efforts towards applying our proprietary, bioresorbable hydrogel-based formulation technology ELUTYX to products and product candidates that are designed to provide local programmed-release hydrogel-based therapeutic agents to the eye using active pharmaceutical ingredients that are currently used in FDA-approved ophthalmic drugs.  We have a number of product candidates at various stages of development based on ELUTYX and are exploring the potential use of ELUTYX for other ophthalmic diseases and conditions.  These product candidates include intracanalicular inserts eluting drug product to the ocular surface; hydrogel drug delivery implants designed to release therapeutic antibodies and small molecules such as TKIs to modulate the biological activity of VEGF over a sustained period following administration by an intravitreal injection for the treatment of diseases and conditions of the back of the eye, including wet AMD and NPDR; and hydrogel drug delivery implants designed to release drug product into the anterior chamber of the eye via an intracameral injection for the treatment of diseases and conditions of the front of the eye.

Our product candidates and any other product candidates that we may develop based on ELUTYX may not be suitable for continued preclinical or clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance.  If we do not successfully develop and commercialize products and product candidates that are based on ELUTYX, we will not be able to obtain substantial product revenues in future periods. 

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

​

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific 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. In addition, if we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential of a target market for a particular product candidate, we may 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. 

We are currently prioritizing the advancement of AXPAXLI through Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of wet AMD and the advancement of AXPAXLI through Phase 1 clinical development for the treatment of NPDR. We are also focused on the advancement through Phase 2 clinical development of PAXTRAVA for the treatment of OAG or OHT, and the continued commercialization of DEXTENZA, and are assessing the further development of OTX-DED for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease and OTX-CSI for the chronic treatment of dry eye disease. Although we believe our prioritization of resources is currently the best use of our resources, we may not be correct.

We have conducted, and may in the future conduct, clinical trials for product candidates at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations.

​

We have conducted, and may in the future choose to conduct, one or more of our clinical trials outside the United States. We are currently conducting the SOL-1 trial both inside and outside of the United States, with planned sites in Argentina and other countries. We have often conducted our initial and earlier-stage clinical trials for our product candidates outside the United States, including our Phase 1 clinical trial for our product candidate AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD in Australia.

Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of this data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA.  For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles.  The trial population must also adequately

Table of Contents

represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful.  In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will depend on its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations.  If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and would delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates.  Even if the FDA accepted such data, it could require us to modify our planned clinical trials to receive clearance to initiate such trials in the United States or to continue such trials once initiated.

Other risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include:

​

Risks Related to Commercialization

​

We depend heavily on the success of DEXTENZA and any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. If we fail to commercialize these products successfully, our ability to generate significant product revenues and our business would be materially harmed.

​

The commercial success of DEXTENZA and any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will depend on many factors, including the following:

In certain cases, such as in our ongoing collaboration with AffaMed, many of these factors may be or are beyond our control, including clinical development and sales, marketing and distribution efforts.  If we or our collaborators do

Table of Contents

not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our products and product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

Even though DEXTENZA has received marketing approval from the FDA and even if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, these products may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, and the market opportunity for these products may be smaller than we estimate.

​

DEXTENZA, ReSure Sealant or any of our product candidates that receives marketing approval may fail to gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community.  We commercially launched ReSure Sealant in the first quarter of 2014, DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain in July 2019, and DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the first quarter of 2022, and we cannot yet accurately predict the extent to which these products will gain market acceptance and become commercially successful, if at all.   

The degree of market acceptance of any of our products, or any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will depend on a number of factors, including:

For example, because we have not conducted any clinical trials to date comparing the effectiveness of DEXTENZA directly to currently approved alternative treatments for post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery or ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis, market acceptance of DEXTENZA could be less than if we had conducted such trials, and we may not be able to achieve the market share we anticipate. 

Our assessment of the potential market opportunity for DEXTENZA and our product candidates is based on industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties.  Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information.  While we believe these industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies are reliable, we have not independently verified such data.  If the actual market for DEXTENZA or any of our product candidates is smaller than we expect, our product revenue may be limited and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability.

Table of Contents

If we are unable to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing DEXTENZA or any product candidates if and when they are approved.

​

We have limited experience in the sale, marketing and distribution of drug and device products.  To achieve commercial success for DEXTENZA and any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, either ourselves or through collaborations or other arrangements with third parties. We have built our own highly targeted, key account sales force for DEXTENZA that has focused primarily on ambulatory surgical centers, or ASCs, responsible for the largest volumes of cataract surgery.

We believe that certain of our product candidates, if they are successfully developed and obtain marketing approval, would be used in ophthalmologists’ offices, similar to DEXTENZA for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. We believe the office setting offers a unique set of potential challenges. If we do not succeed in adapting our marketing efforts to include the office setting, our ability to commercialize DEXTENZA to its fullest potential or any future product candidates used in the office setting would be adversely affected.

Because we have not historically evaluated whether to seek regulatory approval for any of our products or product candidates outside of the United States, pending potential receipt of regulatory approval for the applicable product candidate in the United States, at this time we cannot be certain when, if ever, we will recognize revenue from commercialization of our products or product candidates in any international markets.  If we decide to commercialize our products outside of the United States, we expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize any product of ours that receives marketing approval.  These may include independent distributors, pharmaceutical companies or our own direct sales organization. For example, we intend to rely on AffaMed to commercialize DEXTENZA and PAXTRAVA, if approved for marketing, in specified jurisdictions in Asia in connection with our collaboration agreement with AffaMed.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and with entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services.  We may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our products or may be unable to do so on terms that are most beneficial to us.  Such third parties may have interests that differ from ours.  We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to market, sell and distribute our products effectively.  Our product revenues and our profitability, if any, under third-party collaboration, distribution or other marketing arrangements may also be lower than if we were to sell, market and distribute a product ourselves.  On the other hand, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch.  If the commercial launch of any product or product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses.  This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. 

Other factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize products on our own include:

If we do not establish and maintain sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing DEXTENZA or any of our product candidates. 

Table of Contents

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

​

The development and commercialization of new drug and device products is highly competitive.  We face competition with respect to our products and product candidates, and will face competition with respect to any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide.  Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Our products and product candidates target markets that are already served by a variety of competing products based on a number of active pharmaceutical ingredients.  Many of these existing products have achieved widespread acceptance among physicians, patients and payors for the treatment of ophthalmic diseases and conditions.  In addition, many of these products are available on a generic basis, and our products and product candidates may not demonstrate sufficient additional clinical benefits to physicians, patients or payors to justify a higher price compared to generic products.  In many cases, insurers or other third-party payors, particularly Medicare, encourage the use of generic products.  As a result, our products face, and product candidates, if approved, will face, competition from drugs based on the same or similar active pharmaceutical ingredients but that are administered in a different manner, typically through eye drops or intravitreal injections. 

Because the active pharmaceutical ingredients in our products and product candidates are primarily available on a generic basis, or are soon to be available on a generic basis, competitors will be able to offer and sell products with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as our products so long as these competitors do not infringe the patents that we license or own.  For example, our licensed patents related to our intracanalicular insert products and product candidates largely relate to the hydrogel composition of the intracanalicular inserts and certain drug-release features of the inserts.  As such, if a third party were able to design around the formulation and process patents that we license or own and create a different formulation using a different production process not covered by our licensed patents or patent applications, we would likely be unable to prevent that third party from manufacturing and marketing its product. 

Other companies have advanced into Phase 3 clinical development biodegradable, programmed-release drug delivery product candidates that could compete with our intracanalicular insert products and product candidates.  Multiple companies are exploring in early-stage development alternative means to deliver anti-VEGF and TKI products in an extended-delivery fashion to the back of the eye.  There are also multiple branded, generic and over-the-counter products, in the dry eye space, including Restasis, for increasing tear production, marketed by Allergan; Cequa for increasing tear production, marketed by Sun Ophthalmics in the United States; lifitegrast, for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, marketed by Bausch & Lomb (previously marketed by Novartis) under the brand name Xiidra®; and off-label use of corticosteroids.

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, are less expensive than our products or have better reimbursement.  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. 

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.  Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors.  Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.  These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, manufacturing, marketing, and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. 

Table of Contents

DEXTENZA and any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage or reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could harm our business.

​

Our ability to commercialize DEXTENZA or any product candidates that we may develop successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government healthcare programs, private health insurers, managed care plans and other organizations.  Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels.  A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment.  Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications.  Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug and device companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products.  Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for DEXTENZA or any other product that we commercialize and, even if they are available, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory. 

Inadequate reimbursement may adversely affect the demand for, or the price of, DEXTENZA or any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.  Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult.  We may be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies.  If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize DEXTENZA or any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. 

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs and devices, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States.  Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses.  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.  Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.  Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies.  Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any FDA-approved products that we develop would compromise our ability to generate revenues and become profitable. 

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug and device products vary widely from country to country.  Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals.  Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed.  In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted.  In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted.  As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country.  To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product or product candidate to other available therapies.  Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more products or product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. 

DEXTENZA or any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval in the United States or in other countries may not be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, may not be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, coverage and an adequate level of reimbursement may not be available, and reimbursement policies of third-party payors may adversely affect our ability to sell our products and product candidates profitably.  DEXTENZA is currently considered a post-surgical product, in the same fashion as eye drops. However, if

Table of Contents

DEXTENZA were instead categorized as an intra-operative product, it would not be subject to separate reimbursement in ASCs and hospital out-patient departments, or HOPDs, which could likewise limit its market acceptance.

A specific and permanent J-Code for ophthalmic inserts containing dexamethasone including DEXTENZA is in effect, and DEXTENZA currently benefits from separate payment in the ASC setting because it meets the criteria set forth for non-opioid pain management drugs as a surgical supply provision. CMS evaluates the eligibility of products such as DEXTENZA for separate payment annually, and there can be no assurance that CMS will not change the criteria applicable to non-opioid pain management drugs for 2024 or beyond. If DEXTENZA is no longer eligible for reimbursement separately from ophthalmic surgery in the ASC setting, due to the loss of pass-through status or otherwise, our net product revenues, which currently consist primarily of DEXTENZA sales in reliance on separate reimbursement through pass-through status, would decline significantly, and our ability to generate revenues from future sales of DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain would be adversely affected.

CMS has also established the fixed reimbursement amount for Category I Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, code 68841, the procedure code for the insertion of DEXTENZA. As this fee schedule is lower than reimbursement many physicians received under the prior Category III CPT code for DEXTENZA, physicians may have less incentive to use DEXTENZA and, as a result, our ability to continue to commercialize DEXTENZA may decrease. Additionally, CMS will review such determination as part of its annual rulemaking cycle, and such amount could be further reduced in the future. Physicians’ desire to use DEXTENZA could also be adversely impacted if competitive products secure higher procedure payments for their use than DEXTENZA.

There are no assurances that we will be successful in maintaining reimbursement for DEXTENZA or of obtaining or maintaining reimbursement for any products or product candidates for which we might receive marketing approval in the future.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we develop.

​

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the use of our product candidates that we develop in human clinical trials.  We face an even greater risk for any products we develop and commercially sell or have sold, including DEXTENZA and ReSure Sealant.  If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities.  Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold product liability insurance coverage; however these policies may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur and we may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials and our sales of DEXTENZA and any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. 

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Manufacturing

​

If our sole clinical and commercial manufacturing facility is damaged or destroyed or production at this facility is otherwise interrupted, our business and prospects would be negatively affected.

​

If our single-site manufacturing facility or the equipment in it is damaged or destroyed, we may not be able to quickly or inexpensively replace our manufacturing capacity or replace it at all.  In the event of a temporary or protracted loss of this facility or equipment, we might not be able to transfer manufacturing to another facility or to a third party.  Even if we could transfer our manufacturing to another facility or a third party, the shift would likely be expensive and time-consuming, particularly since any new facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements and to be inspected and qualified.  We would also need FDA approval before any products manufactured at that facility could be used for commercial supply.  In the case of any disruption in our manufacturing operations at this facility, we may not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates to meet our clinical trial requirements or of our product inventory to meet our commercial requirements. Such an event could delay our clinical trials or, particularly because we have sought to adopt just-in-time manufacturing practices and maintain limited commercial product inventory with our distributors, reduce our product sales. 

Currently, we maintain insurance coverage against damage to our property and equipment and to cover business interruption and research and development restoration expenses.  However, our insurance coverage may not reimburse us, or may not be sufficient to reimburse us, for any expenses or losses we may suffer.  We may be unable to meet our requirements for DEXTENZA or any of our product candidates if there were a catastrophic event or failure of our current manufacturing facility or processes. 

We will need to upgrade and expand our manufacturing facility or relocate to another facility and to augment our manufacturing personnel and processes in order to meet our business plans. If we fail to do so, we may not have sufficient quantities of our products or product candidates to meet our commercial and clinical trial requirements.

​

We manufacture DEXTENZA and our product candidates for use in clinical trials, research and development and commercial efforts at our single-site clinical and commercial manufacturing facility located in Bedford, Massachusetts.  In order to meet our business plan, which contemplates our scaling up manufacturing processes to support the commercialization of our current products and the development and potential commercialization of our current and future product candidates, we will need to upgrade and expand our existing manufacturing facility, or relocate to another manufacturing facility; add manufacturing, quality and support personnel; ensure that new processes, systems, and facilities are qualified and validated; and ensure that any new processes and systems are consistently implemented in our facility or facilities.  The upgrade and expansion of our facility, or the relocation to an additional facility, will require additional regulatory approvals including FDA audits of such new processes, systems, and facilities.  In addition, it will be costly and time-consuming to expand our facility or relocate to another facility and recruit necessary additional personnel.  If we are unable to expand our manufacturing facility or relocate to another facility in compliance with regulatory requirements or to hire additional necessary manufacturing personnel, we may encounter delays or additional costs in achieving our research, development and commercialization objectives, including obtaining regulatory approvals of our product candidates and meeting customer demand for our products, which could materially damage our business and financial position.

We must comply with federal, state and foreign regulations, including quality standards applicable to medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers, such as cGMP, which are enforced by the FDA through means including its facilities inspection program and system audits and by similar regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions where we do business.  These requirements include, among other things, quality control, quality systems and the maintenance of records and documentation.  For example, between March 2015 and May 2018, we received multiple Form 483s from the FDA containing inspectional observations relating to inadequate procedures for documenting follow-up information pertinent to the investigation of complaints and for evaluation of complaints for adverse event reporting; process controls, analytical testing and physical security procedures related to manufacture of our drug product for stability and commercial production purposes; and procedures for manufacturing processes and analytical testing related to the manufacture of drug product for commercial production. In each of July 2016 and July 2017, we also received a Complete Response Letter, or CRL, from the FDA regarding our NDA for DEXTENZA pertaining to, among other things, the deficiencies in manufacturing processes, controls, and analytical testing identified during pre-NDA approval inspections of our manufacturing facility documented on Form 483s. We may be subject to similar inspections, audits

Table of Contents

and other requirements in connection with subsequent applications for other product candidates or in connection with periodic, routine surveillance for products for which we have received marketing authorization.

The FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities at any time also may implement new standards, or change their interpretation and enforcement of existing standards, for the manufacture, packaging or testing of our products.  Any failure to comply with applicable regulations may result in fines and civil penalties, suspension of production, product seizure or recall, imposition of a consent decree, or withdrawal of product approval, and would limit the availability of DEXTENZA and our product candidates that we manufacture. 

Any manufacturing defect or error discovered after products have been produced and distributed could result in significant consequences, including costly recall procedures, re-stocking costs, damage to our reputation and potential for product liability claims. 

We expect to continue to contract with third parties for at least some aspects of the production of our products and product candidates. We also depend from time to time on single-source suppliers for certain materials used in the manufacturing of our products and product candidates. This increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our products or product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

​

We currently rely on third parties for some aspects of the production of DEXTENZA and our product candidates for commercialization and preclinical testing and clinical trials.  While we expect that our existing manufacturing facility, or additional facilities that we might build, will be sufficient to meet our requirements for manufacturing DEXTENZA and any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, we may in the future need to rely on third-party manufacturers for some aspects of the manufacture of our products or product candidates. 

We also depend on single-source suppliers for certain materials used in the manufacturing of our products and product candidates, including our supply of PEG, the molecule that forms the basis of our hydrogels, and other raw materials of our products and product candidates and for sterilization and packaging of the finished product. We do not have any long-term supply agreements in place for the clinical or commercial supply of any drug substances or raw materials for DEXTENZA or any of our product candidates.  We purchase drug substance and raw materials, including the chemical constituents for our hydrogel, from independent suppliers on a purchase order basis. We cannot ensure that our suppliers will remain in business, have sufficient capacity or supply to meet our needs or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to work with us. Our use of single-source suppliers of raw materials and other components used in the manufacturing of our products and product candidates could expose us to several risks, including disruptions in supply, price increases or late deliveries. Any performance failure or refusal to supply drug substance or raw materials on the part of our existing or future suppliers could delay clinical development, marketing approval or commercialization of our products. If our current suppliers do not perform as we expect, we may be required to replace one or more of these suppliers. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers could take a substantial amount of time, and it may be difficult to establish replacement suppliers who meet our quality standards and applicable regulatory requirements. For example, we depend on a sole source supplier for the supply of our PEG.  This sole source supplier may be unwilling or unable to supply PEG to us reliably, continuously and at the levels we anticipate or are required by the market.  Although we believe that there are a number of potential long-term replacements to our suppliers, including our PEG supplier, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacements. 

Reliance on third parties for aspects of the supply of our products and product candidates entails additional risks, including:

Table of Contents

Third-party suppliers or manufacturers may not be able to comply with our specifications, quality assurance standards, cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States.  Our failure, or the failure of our third parties, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products and product candidates. Further, reliance on third-party suppliers or manufacturers may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive regulatory approval on a timely and competitive basis. 

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

​

We have entered into collaborations with third parties to develop certain product candidates, and in the future we may enter into additional collaborations for the development or commercialization of our product candidates. We may also enter into collaboration, distribution or marketing arrangements for the commercialization of DEXTENZA, ReSure Sealant, or any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. If our collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these products or product candidates.

​

We have in the past entered into collaboration agreements with third parties, including our collaboration with AffaMed, and expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties to commercialize DEXTENZA, or any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval in markets outside the United States.  We also may enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services in the United States if we do not establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities in the United States for such products or if we determine that such third-party arrangements are otherwise beneficial. We also may seek additional third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of product candidates, including PAXTRAVA and AXPAXLI. Our likely collaborators for any sales, marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.  Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. 

Our collaboration with AffaMed poses, and any future collaborations likely will pose, a number of risks including the following:

Table of Contents

Collaboration agreements may not lead to the development or commercialization of products or product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all.  If any collaborations that we enter into do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration.  If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, or if we are required to return previously received funds, or if product licenses are sold or transferred to another party as a result of a collaborators’ bankruptcy, our development of our products or product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our products or product candidates.  For example, our former collaborator Regeneron terminated our collaboration in August 2021. As a result of the termination, we were relieved of obligations to reimburse Regeneron for certain development costs, up to an aggregate amount of $30.0 million in certain circumstances, were Regeneron to exercise its option but also ceased to be eligible to receive (i) reimbursement from Regeneron for ongoing research and development activities, (ii) a fee upon exercise of its option, (iii) payments upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones of the products developed under the collaboration, or (iv) tiered, escalating royalties on such products. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this periodic report also apply to the activities of our collaborators. 

Additionally, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be harmed.

If we are not able to establish additional collaborations, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans and our business could be adversely affected.

​

In October 2020, we entered into a collaboration with AffaMed for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA regarding ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery and ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis and for PAXTRAVA regarding OAG and OHT in specified territories in Asia. For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies for the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators.  Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors.  Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such

Table of Contents

product candidate to subjects, the potential of competing products, and industry and market conditions generally.  The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate.  We may also be restricted under current or future license and collaboration agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators.   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 future collaborators.  If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis and on acceptable terms, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay one or more development programs, or limit potential commercialization activities. 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 our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our product platform. 

Although the majority of our clinical development is administered and managed by our own employees, we have relied, and may continue to rely, on third parties for certain aspects of our clinical development, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

​

Our employees have administered and managed most of our clinical development work to date.  However, we also utilize third parties, such as CROs, to conduct clinical trials of certain of our product candidates, including AXPAXLI for the treatment of wet AMD and NPDR and PAXTRAVA for the treatment of OAG or OHT, and we may continue to do so.  If we deem necessary, we may engage additional third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct or assist in our clinical trials or other clinical development work.  If we are unable to enter into an agreement with a CRO or other service provider when required, our product development activities could be delayed. 

Our reliance on third parties for research and development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities.  For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials, including the SOL-1 trial and the HELIOS trial, is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial.  Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected, even if a third party is administering certain activities.  For example, in May 2020, we disclosed the receipt of interim data regarding our Phase 1 clinical trial of AXPAXLI, in Australia, for the treatment of wet AMD and other retinal diseases. We discovered, however, that our disclosures did not include complete information when we became aware in July 2020 that a clinical trial site had not entered certain data concerning these subjects into the clinical trial database in a timely manner. If we engage third parties and they 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, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates. 

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

​

We may be unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or the scope of the patent protection obtained may not be sufficiently broad, such that our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be impaired.

​

Our success depends in large part on our and our licensor’s ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products.  We and our licensor have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies, products and product candidates.  Our licensed and owned patent portfolio that we believe is integral to our business includes patents with terms that extend from 2024 to 2041. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, we may have a reduced patent exclusivity period upon approval.  The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not have filed or prosecuted and may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or

Table of Contents

in a timely manner.  It is also possible that we have failed, or may in the future fail, to identify patentable aspects of our research and development efforts before it is too late to obtain patent protection. 

In some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to enforce or maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties.  In particular, the license agreement that we have entered into with Incept LLC, or Incept, an intellectual property holding company, which covers a significant portion of the patent rights and the technology for DEXTENZA, ReSure Sealant and our product candidates, provides that, with limited exceptions, Incept has sole control and responsibility for ongoing prosecution for  certain  patents covered by the license agreement.  In addition, although we have a right under the Incept license to bring suit against third parties who infringe such licensed patents in our fields, other Incept licensees may also have the right to enforce these patents in their own respective fields without our oversight or control.  Those other licensees may choose to enforce our licensed patents in a way that harms our interest, for example, by advocating for claim interpretations or agreeing on invalidity positions that conflict with our positions or our interest.  For example, three of our licensed patents related to ReSure Sealant were invalidated and rendered unenforceable following their assertion by Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation, another licensee of Incept. We also have no right to control the defense of such licensed patents if their validity or scope is challenged before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or other patent office or tribunal.  Instead, we would essentially rely on our licensor to defend such challenges, and it may not do so in a way that would best protect our interests.  Therefore, certain of our licensed patents and applications may not be prosecuted, enforced, defended or maintained in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.  If Incept fails to prosecute, enforce or maintain such patents, or loses rights to those patents, our licensed patent portfolio may be reduced or eliminated. 

The patent position of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation.  As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights, including our licensed patent rights, are highly uncertain.  Our and our licensor’s pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products.  In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States.  Patents might not be issued and we may never obtain any patent protection or may only obtain substantially limited patent protection outside of the United States with respect to our products. Further, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system will likely be introduced by the end of 2023, which would significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications will soon have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes.

Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all.  Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensor were the first to make the inventions claimed in our licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.  Databases for patents and publications, and methods for searching them, are inherently limited so it is not practical to review and know the full scope of all issued and pending patent applications.  As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our licensed and owned patent rights are uncertain.  Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products.  Moreover, changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. 

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.  The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law.  These include provisions that affect the

Table of Contents

way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation.  The USPTO developed new 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, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013.  The first to file provisions limit the rights of an inventor to patent an invention if not the first to file an application for patenting that invention, even if such invention was the first invention.  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 patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.  For example, the Leahy-Smith Act provides an administrative tribunal known as the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, or PTAB, that provides a venue for companies to challenge the validity of competitor patents at a cost that is much lower than district court litigation and on timelines that are much faster.  Although it is not clear what, if any, long term impact the PTAB proceedings will have on the operation of our business, the results of patent challenge proceedings before the PTAB since its inception in 2013 have resulted in the invalidation of many U.S. patent claims.  The availability of the PTAB as a lower-cost, faster and potentially more potent tribunal for challenging patents could therefore increase the likelihood that our own licensed and owned patents will be challenged, thereby increasing the uncertainties and costs of maintaining and enforcing them.  Moreover, if such challenges occur, as indicated above, we have no right to control the defense of our licensed portfolio.  Instead, we would essentially rely on our licensor to consider our suggestions and to defend such challenges, with the possibility that it may not do so in a way that best protects our interests. 

We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in other contested proceedings such as opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others.  An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.  In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future products. 

In the United States, the FDA does not prohibit physicians from prescribing an approved product for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling.  Although use of a product directed by off-label prescriptions may infringe our method-of-treatment patents, the practice is common across medical specialties, particularly in the United States, and such infringement is difficult to detect, prevent or prosecute.  In addition, patents that cover methods of use for a medical device cannot be enforced against the party that uses the device, but rather only against the party that makes them.  Such indirect enforcement is more difficult to achieve. 

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our licensed and owned patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad.  Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, 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 our technology and products.  

Because the active pharmaceutical ingredients in our products and product candidates are primarily available on a generic basis, or are soon to be available on a generic basis, competitors will be able to offer and sell products with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as our products so long as these competitors do not infringe our patents or any patents that we license.  These patents largely relate to the hydrogel composition and drug-release design scheme of our products.  As such, if a third party were able to design around the formulation and process patents that we license and own and create a different formulation using a different production process not covered by our patents or patent applications, we would likely be unable to prevent that third party from manufacturing and marketing its product. 

If we are not able to obtain patent term extensions in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation, thereby potentially extending the term of our marketing exclusivity for our product and product candidates, our business may be impaired.

​

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one of the U.S. patents covering each of such product candidates or the use thereof may be eligible for up to five years of patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act.  The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA-approved product.  Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon

Table of Contents

regulatory approval of our product candidates.  Nevertheless, we may not be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country 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 term of extension, as well as the scope of patent protection during any such extension, afforded by the governmental authority could be less than we request. 

​

Further, our license from Incept does not provide us with the right to control decisions by Incept or its other licensees on Orange Book listings or patent term extension decisions under the Hatch-Waxman Act.  Thus, if one of our important licensed patents is eligible for a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, and it covers a product of another Incept licensee in addition to our own product candidate, we may not be able to obtain that extension if the other licensee seeks and obtains that extension first. 

​

If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product may be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration sooner, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. 

​

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our licensed and owned patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

​

Competitors may infringe our licensed or owned patents or other intellectual property.  As a result, to counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming.  Under the terms of our license agreement with Incept, we have the right to initiate suit against third parties who we believe infringe on the patents subject to the license.  Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents.  In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we have rights to 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 in question.  An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly.  Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. 

​

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

​

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products and product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties.  We may become party to, or threatened with, infringement litigation claims regarding our products and technology, including claims from competitors or from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect.  Moreover, we may become party to future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding our patent portfolio or the patents of third parties.  Such proceedings could also include contested post-grant proceedings such as oppositions, inter partes review, reexamination, interference or derivation proceedings before the USPTO or foreign patent offices.  The legal threshold for initiating litigation or contested proceedings is low, so that even lawsuits or proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated and require significant resources to defend.  Litigation and contested proceedings can also be expensive and time-consuming, and our adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensor can.  The risks of being involved in such litigation and proceedings may increase as our products or product candidates near commercialization and as we gain the greater visibility associated with being a public company.  Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future.  We may not be aware of all such intellectual property rights potentially relating to our products or product candidates and their uses, or we may incorrectly determine that a patent is invalid or does not cover a particular product or product candidate.  Thus, we do not know with certainty that any of our products or product candidates, or our commercialization thereof, does not and will not infringe or otherwise violate any third party’s intellectual property. 

We have been made aware by a third party of patents relating to intracanalicular inserts that may relate to, and potentially could be asserted against, our intracanalicular insert product and product candidates, including DEXTENZA.

Table of Contents

We believe that DEXTENZA does not infringe any claims of these patents. We also believe that such claims, if and to the extent they were asserted against our product candidates, would be subject to claims of invalidity. We initiated legal proceedings against one of these patents and administrative proceedings against the other two patents in order to show that DEXTENZA does not infringe the claims of these patents or that these patents are invalid. Legal proceedings related to one of these patents has been dismissed by agreement of the parties without prejudice. The USPTO decided to proceed with the administrative proceeding related to one of the patents while declining to do so for the other after determining that we had not established a reasonable likelihood that we would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of certain claims. In June 2020, for the patent for which the USPTO decided to proceed with administrative proceedings, the PTAB, after an inter partes review, determined that we had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that all claims of the patent at issue held by such third party were invalid. The third party appealed this decision, and in November 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the PTAB. The period during which such third party may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals has lapsed. We continue to believe that DEXTENZA does not infringe the claims of these patents and that, if and to the extent it were asserted against DEXTENZA, such patent would be subject to a claim of invalidity. We have become aware that the USPTO has recently issued a patent filed by this third party related to intracanalicular inserts containing dexamethasone. If this patent were asserted against DEXTENZA or other of our product candidates, we believe such patent would be non-infringed and subject to a claim of invalidity.

​

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to cease manufacturing or commercializing the infringing product or product candidate or to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and product candidates. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product containing such technology. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent and could be forced to indemnify our customers or collaborators. A finding of infringement could also result in an injunction that prevents us from commercializing our products or product candidates or forces us to cease some of our business operations. In addition, we may be forced to redesign our products or product candidates, seek new regulatory approvals thereby causing delays, and indemnify third parties pursuant to contractual agreements. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

​

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

​

Our license agreement with Incept, under which we license certain portions of our patent rights and the technology for our products and product candidates, imposes royalty and other financial obligations and other substantial performance obligations on us.  We also may enter into additional licensing and funding arrangements with third parties that may impose diligence, development and commercialization timelines and milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us.  If we fail to comply with our obligations under current or future license and collaboration agreements, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to manufacture or market any product that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under the agreements.  Such an occurrence could diminish the value of our product.  Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology. 

Under the terms of our license agreement with Incept, we have agreed to assign to Incept our rights in certain patent applications filed at any time in any country for which one or more inventors are under an obligation of assignment to us.  These assigned patent applications and any resulting patents are included within the specified patents owned or controlled by Incept to which we receive a license under the agreement.  Incept has retained rights to practice the patents and technology licensed to us under the agreement for all purposes other than for researching, designing, developing, manufacturing and commercializing products that are delivered to or around the human eye for diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic purposes relating to ophthalmic diseases or conditions.  As a result, termination of our agreement with Incept, based on our failure to comply with this or any other obligation under the agreement, would cause us to lose a significant portion of our rights to important intellectual property or technology upon which our business depends.  Additionally, the field limit of the license and the requirement that we assign to Incept our rights in

Table of Contents

certain patent applications may restrict our ability to use certain of our licensed rights to expand our business outside of the specified fields.  If we determine to pursue a strategy of expanding the use of the hydrogel technology outside of the specified fields, we would need to negotiate and enter into an amendment to our existing license agreement with Incept or a new license agreement with Incept covering one or more additional such fields of use or utilize technologies that do not infringe on such licensed rights.  We may not be able to obtain any such required amendment or new license or to invent or otherwise access other technology on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

​

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology, medical device or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors.  Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer.  Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. 

In addition, 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 such 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, such agreements may be ineffective, or such agreements may be breached by our counterparty. 

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.   

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

​

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.  In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.  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.  We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately.  Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources.  Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace. 

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

​

In addition to seeking patents for our technology, products and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position.  We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties.  We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants.  Despite these efforts, 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 are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.  If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us.  If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed. 

Table of Contents

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic versions of our current commercial product or any of our future drug products that receive marketing approval through the NDA pathway, or such authorities do not grant such future products appropriate periods of data exclusivity before approving generic versions of our products, our sales could be adversely affected.

​

Once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “reference-listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” commonly known as the Orange Book. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference-listed drugs through submission of abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, in the United States. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical trials to assess safety and efficacy. Rather, the applicant generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference-listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference-listed drug, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference-listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference-listed drug is typically lost to the generic product.

The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference-listed drug has expired. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains an active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. This interpretation was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference-listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference-listed drug. The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical trials, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application.

Generic drug manufacturers may seek to launch generic products following the expiration of any applicable exclusivity period we obtain if our product candidates are approved, even if we still have patent protection for such product candidates. Competition that any such product candidates of ours may face from generic versions of such products could materially and adversely impact our future revenue, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we may make in those product candidates.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Marketing of Our Product Candidates and Other Legal Compliance Matters

​

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the regulatory approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. If we or any current or future collaborator of ours is not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we or they will not be able to commercialize our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

​

The activities associated with the development and commercialization of our products and product candidates, including design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by the EMA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have only received approval to market DEXTENZA and ReSure Sealant in the United States, and have not received approval to market any of our product candidates or to market DEXTENZA or ReSure Sealant in any jurisdiction outside the United States. Further, we have only received approval to market DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery and ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. If we are unable to obtain a CE Certificate of Conformity for any of our products or product candidates for which we seek European regulatory approval, we will be prohibited from commercializing such product or products in the European Union and other places

Table of Contents

which require the CE Certificate of Conformity. In such a case, the potential market to commercialize our products may be significantly smaller than we currently estimate.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and may take many years, if approval is obtained at all. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and purity. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. The FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe or effective, are only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

As part of its review of the NDA for DEXTENZA for post-surgical ocular pain, the FDA completed inspections of three sites from our two completed Phase 3 clinical trials for compliance with the study protocol and Good Clinical Practices as well as two inspections of our manufacturing facility. The FDA identified several deficiencies and issued us multiple Forms 483s and two CRLs, each of which delayed our development and commercialization efforts. We may be subject to similar inspections in the future for any of our products and product candidates.

Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA, the EMA and regulatory authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we or any current or future collaborator of ours ultimately obtains may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Accordingly, if we or any current or future collaborator of ours experiences delays in obtaining approval or if we or they fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Even if we, or any current or future collaborators, obtain marketing approvals for our product candidates, the terms of approvals, ongoing regulations and post-marketing restrictions for our products may limit how we manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

​

Once marketing approval has been granted, an approved product and its manufacturer and marketer are subject to ongoing review and extensive regulation. 

Manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs applicable to drug and biologic manufacturers or quality assurance standards applicable to medical device manufacturers, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements.  We, any contract manufacturers we may engage in the future, our current or future collaborators and their contract manufacturers will also be subject to other regulatory requirements, including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, recordkeeping, and costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product such as the requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. 

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. For example, the FDA required two post-approval studies as a condition for approval of our premarket approval application for ReSure Sealant, the last of which the FDA confirmed was complete in April 2021. The studies were expensive, required extensive communication and coordination with the FDA, and took more than five years to complete. The FDA also has required us to conduct a clinical trial of DEXTENZA for the treatment of

Table of Contents

post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain and for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in pediatric populations in accordance with the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003.

Certain endpoint data we hope to include in any approved product labeling also may not make it into such labeling, including exploratory or secondary endpoint data such as patient-reported outcome measures. The FDA may also require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA, EMA or a comparable non-U.S. regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

The FDA may impose consent decrees or withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-marketing studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

In addition, we are, or may become, subject to various U.S. federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and recommendations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory and manufacturing practices, the experimental use of animals, and the use and disposal of hazardous substances, including radioactive compounds and infectious disease agents, used in connection with our research work. If we fail to comply with the laws and regulations pertaining to our business, we may be subject to sanctions, including the temporary or permanent suspension of operations, product recalls, marketing restrictions, and civil and criminal penalties.

Finally, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted by ongoing litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Specifically, on April 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas stayed the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various conditions adopted under a REMS. In reaching that decision, the District Court made a number of findings that may negatively impact the development, approval and distribution of drug products in the United States. Further, the District Court read the standing requirements governing litigation in federal court as permitting a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve an NDA or establish requirements under a REMS based on a showing that the plaintiff or its members would be harmed to the extent that FDA’s drug approval decision effectively compelled the plaintiffs to provide care for patients suffering adverse events caused by a given drug.

On April 12, 2023, the District Court decision was stayed, in part, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral argument in the case on May 17, 2023 and, on August 16, 2023, issued its decision. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone that FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021 were arbitrary and capricious. On September 8, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice and a manufacturer of mifepristone filed petitions for a writ of certiorari, requesting that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On December 13, 2023, the Supreme Court granted these petitions for writ of certiorari for the decision.

Table of Contents

Accordingly, in connection with our currently approved products and assuming we, or any current or future collaborators, receive marketing approval for one or more of our product candidates, we, and any current or future collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control.  If we, and any current or future collaborators, are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we, and any current or future collaborators, could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or any current or future collaborators’, ability to market any products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability.  Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition. 

We may be subject to substantial penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products.

​

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to quality control and manufacturing, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. In addition, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the medicine, including the requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. Accordingly, if we receive marketing approval for one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our ability to market any products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

We must also comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to prescription products are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved labeling. Thus, we will not be able to promote any products we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved. The FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice, or the DOJ, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure that they are marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic. Violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA Act, and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription products may lead to investigations and enforcement actions alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

Table of Contents

Similar restrictions apply to the approval of our products in the European Union. The holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products.

Our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which, in the event of a violation, could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

​

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription and use of our products and any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.  Our future arrangements with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval.  Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Table of Contents

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

If our operations or the operations of our present and future collaborators are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any governmental regulations that apply to us or them, we or they may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.  Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could adversely affect our or their financial results.  We are developing and implementing a corporate compliance program designed to ensure that we will market and sell any future products that we successfully develop from our product candidates in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, but we cannot guarantee that this program will protect us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such 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 fines or other sanctions. 

Efforts to ensure that our business with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. For example, we are engaged in an ongoing effort to improve our healthcare compliance program and establish a more robust compliance infrastructure. We may fail to establish appropriate compliance measures, and even with a stronger program in place, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations.  If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.  If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in other jurisdictions. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States and the UK Bribery Act 2010. Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed and often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual European Union Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Current and future legislation or executive actions may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any current or future collaborators to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our products or product candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain.

In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any future collaborators, to profitably sell any drugs for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any future collaborators, may receive for any approved drugs. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed.

Table of Contents

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the CARES Act. Pursuant to subsequent legislation, however, these Medicare sequester reductions were suspended and reduced through the end of June 2022, with the full 2% cut scheduled to resume thereafter. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our products or product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product is prescribed or used. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the 2017 Tax Act, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, on June 17, 2021,the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an action to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA after finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the legal action. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden revoked those Executive Orders and issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Executive Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product we might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop or commercialize product candidates.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States and foreign jurisdictions are subject to considerable legislative and executive actions and could impact the prices we obtain for our products, if and when licensed.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. In 2020, President Trump issued several Executive Orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most-favored-nation model

Table of Contents

for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries’ access to evidence-based care.

In addition, in October 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada.  Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval.  On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. 

Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Executive Order directed the HHS to create a plan to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” On September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.

More recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products were to become the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years.

Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay

Table of Contents

rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. In addition, the IRA potentially raises legal risks with respect to individuals participating in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan who may experience a gap in coverage if they required coverage above their initial annual coverage limit before they reached the higher threshold, or “catastrophic period” of the plan. Individuals requiring services exceeding the initial annual coverage limit and below the catastrophic period, must pay 100% of the cost of their prescriptions until they reach the catastrophic period. Among other things, the IRA contains many provisions aimed at reducing this financial burden on individuals by reducing the co-insurance and co-payment costs, expanding eligibility for lower income subsidy plans, and price caps on annual out-of-pocket expenses, each of which could have potential pricing and reporting implications.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

In countries outside of the United States, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed.

Reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and other governmental drug pricing programs are complex and may involve subjective decisions. Any failure to comply with those obligations could subject us to penalties and sanctions.

As a condition of reimbursement by various federal and state health insurance programs, pharmaceutical companies are required to calculate and report certain pricing information to federal and state agencies. The regulations governing the calculations, price reporting and payment obligations are complex and subject to interpretation by various government and regulatory authorities, as well as the courts. Reasonable assumptions have been made where there is lack of regulations or clear guidance and such assumptions involve subjective decisions and estimates. Pharmaceutical companies are required to report any revisions to calculations, price reporting and payment obligations previously reported or paid. Such revisions could affect liability to federal and state payers and also adversely impact reported financial results of operations in the period of such restatement.

Table of Contents

Uncertainty exists as new laws, regulations, judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, or regulations related to our calculations, price reporting or payments obligations increases the chances of a legal challenge, restatement or investigation. If a company becomes subject to investigations, restatements, or other inquiries concerning compliance with price reporting laws and regulations, it could be required to pay or be subject to additional reimbursements, penalties, sanctions or fines, which could have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, it is possible that future healthcare reform measures could be adopted, which could result in increased pressure on pricing and reimbursement of products and thus have an adverse impact on financial position or business operations.

Further, state Medicaid programs may be slow to invoice pharmaceutical companies for calculated rebates resulting in a lag between the time a sale is recorded and the time the rebate is paid. This results in a company having to carry a liability on its consolidated balance sheets for the estimate of rebate claims expected for Medicaid patients. If actual claims are higher than current estimates, the company’s financial position and results of operations could be adversely affected.

In addition to retroactive rebates and the potential for 340B Program refunds, if a pharmaceutical firm is found to have knowingly submitted any false price information related to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to CMS, it may be liable for civil monetary penalties. Such failure could also be grounds for CMS to terminate the Medicaid drug rebate agreement, pursuant to which companies participate in the Medicaid program. In the event that CMS terminates a rebate agreement, federal payments may not be available under government programs, including Medicaid or Medicare Part B, for covered outpatient drugs.

Additionally, if a pharmaceutical company overcharges the government in connection with the Federal Supply Schedules program or Tricare Retail Pharmacy Program, whether due to a misstated Federal Ceiling Price or otherwise, it is required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against a company under the False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our collaborators are also subject to similar requirements outside of the United States and thus the attendant risks and uncertainties. If our collaborators suffer material and adverse effects from such risks and uncertainties, our rights and benefits for our licensed products could be negatively impacted, which could have a material and adverse impact on our revenues.

Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent our products or product candidates from being marketed abroad.

​

In order to market and sell our products and product candidates in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, including certain jurisdictions covered by our AffaMed collaboration, we or our third-party collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements.  The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing.  The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval.  The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval.  In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be sold in that country.  We or our collaborators may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all.  Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA.  However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in other countries.  We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

Further, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the United Kingdom as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. The United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Single Market and European Union Customs Union. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, became responsible for supervising

Table of Contents

medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland is currently subject to European Union rules. The United Kingdom and European Union have however agreed to the Windsor Framework which fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the United Kingdom. Once implemented, the changes introduced by the Windsor Framework will see the MHRA be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland.

In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the European Union pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may however have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term.

We expect that we will also be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States.

Compliance with global privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR increases our obligations with respect to clinical trials conducted in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and it 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. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. Similar laws and regulations have been approved, or are expected to be approved, in several jurisdictions beyond the European Union including the UK Data Protection Act 2018.

Table of Contents

Similar actions are either in place or under way in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection laws that are applicable to our activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA—which went into effect on January 1, 2020—is creating similar risks and obligations as those created by GDPR, though the CCPA does currently exempt certain information collected as part of a clinical trial subject to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, known as the Common Rule. The CCPA also has been amended through a recent referendum in California that creates additional obligations beginning in 2023. At least two other states have adopted, and many other states are considering, similar legislation. A broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with federal and state laws (both those currently in effect and future legislation) regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with these requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in applicable jurisdictions. These changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal information from our clinical trials, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our internal information technology systems, or those of our vendors, collaborators, contractors, consultants, or other third parties may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs, compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information, trigger contractual and legal obligations, potentially exposing us to liability, reputational harm or otherwise adversely affecting our business and financial results.

We are dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including personal information and information relating to intellectual property, on internal and external information systems and through the information systems of our vendors, collaborators, contractors, consultants, or other third parties. It is critical that we, our vendors, collaborators, contractors, consultants, or other third parties, do so in a secure manner to maintain the availability, security, confidentiality, privacy and integrity of such confidential information.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal information technology systems and those of third parties are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, computer hackers, malicious code, employee error, theft or misuse, denial-of-service attacks, sophisticated nation-state supported actors, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Such systems are also vulnerable to service interruptions or to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, our collaborators, contractors, consultants, vendors, and other third parties, or from cyberattacks by malicious third parties over the Internet or through other mechanisms. Cyberattacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyberattacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial of service attacks, unauthorized access to or deletion of files, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. Cyberattacks also could include phishing attempts or e-mail fraud to cause payments or information to be transmitted to an unintended recipient. We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, and we may not 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. We cannot guarantee that the measures we have taken to date, and actions we may take in the future, will be sufficient to prevent any future breaches.

Table of Contents

While we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident, cyberattack or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs, clinical trials and business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary or confidential information or other similar disruptions, in addition to possibly requiring substantial expenditures of resources to remedy. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from clinical trials could result in delays or termination of our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. In addition, as risks with respect to our information systems continue to evolve, we will incur additional costs to maintain the security of our information systems and comply with evolving laws and regulations pertaining to cybersecurity and related areas.

To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our or our vendors’, collaborators’ or other contractors’ or consultants’ data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, including litigation exposure, penalties and fines, we could become the subject of regulatory action or investigation, enrollment in our clinical trials could be negatively affected, our competitive position and reputation could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed. As a result of such an event, we may be in breach of our contractual obligations. Furthermore, any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our customers or employees, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, 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, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages. Any of the above could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

The financial exposure from the events referenced above could either not be insured against or not be fully covered through any insurance that we maintain and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. In addition, we cannot be sure that our existing insurance coverage will continue to be available on acceptable terms or that our insurers will not deny coverage as to any future claim. There can be no assurance that the limitations of liability in our contracts would be enforceable or adequate or would otherwise protect us from liabilities or damages as a result of the events referenced above.

Laws and regulations governing any international operations we may have in the future may preclude us from developing, manufacturing and selling certain products outside of the United States and require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs.

If we expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate.  The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business.  The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. 

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem.  In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials.  Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. 

If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. 

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting.  The Securities and Exchange

Table of Contents

Commission also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions. 

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We remain highly dependent on the research and development, clinical and business development expertise of our principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team, including Pravin Dugel, M.D., our Executive Chairman, and Antony Mattessich, our President and Chief Executive Officer. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. 

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel is critical to our success.  The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy.  Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products.  Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel.  We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions.  In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy.  Our consultants and advisors may be employed by other entities and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.  If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited. 

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of our company, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of our company that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which our stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares.  These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock.  In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors.  Among other things, these provisions:

Table of Contents

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. 

We have been subject to legal proceedings related to the decline in our stock price, and we could be subject to similar legal proceedings in the future, which could distract our management and could result in substantial costs or large judgments against us.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against companies following periods of volatility in the market prices of their securities.

In July 2017, we experienced a decline in our stock price following our announcement that we had received notice of the FDA’s determination that it could not approve our NDA for DEXTENZA in its then present form. In 2017 and 2018, class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our executive officers and shareholder derivative actions were filed against certain of our executive officers and directors, and two of our investors and against the company as a nominal defendant. While these legal proceedings were ultimately resolved in our and/or the applicable defendants’ favor, they were distracting and were both time-consuming and costly to defend. We may be the target of similar proceedings in the future. We also may face securities class-action litigation if we cannot obtain regulatory approvals for or if we otherwise fail to commercialize our products or product candidates successfully.

In connection with any such legal proceedings, we could incur substantial costs and such costs and any related settlements or judgments may not be covered by insurance. We could also suffer an adverse impact on our reputation and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could cause serious harm to our business, operating results and financial condition.

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for holders of our common stock.

​

Our stock price has been, and in the future may be, volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price at which they purchased it. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

Table of Contents

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be our stockholders’ sole source of gain.

​

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of our Credit Agreement and any future debt agreements that we may enter into, may preclude us from paying dividends without the lenders’ consent or at all. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be our stockholders’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

​