Table of Contents

​

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

​

​

FORM 10-K

​

​

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

​

​

For the transition period from           to         

Commission file number 001-38150

​

​

KALA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

​

(781) 996-5252

(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. ☐

​

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, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $254.3 million, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2021.

​

There were 72,594,005 shares of Common Stock ($0.001 par value) outstanding as of March 28, 2022.

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

​

Part III of this Annual Report incorporates by reference information from the definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2022 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, 2021.

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

​

​

​

Table of Contents

References to Kala

Throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the “Company,” “Kala”, “Kala Pharmaceuticals,” “we,” “us,” and “our,” except where the context requires otherwise, refer to Kala Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, and “our board of directors” refers to the board of directors of Kala Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “target,” “should,” “would” 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 “Risk Factors” section, that we believe 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 or investments we may make.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding

Table of Contents

that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements 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 us and third parties as well as our estimates of potential market opportunities. Industry publications, third-party and our own 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. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and our product candidates, including KPI-012, include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research and other surveys, which may be based on a small sample size and may fail to accurately reflect market opportunities. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions.

​

Risks Factor Summary

​

Our business is subject to a number of risks that if realized could materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and access to liquidity. These risks are discussed more fully in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our principal risks include the following:

​

Table of Contents

​

Table of Contents

Part I

Item 1.       Business

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for diseases of the eye. We have worldwide rights to a portfolio of innovative products and product candidates that include two marketed products utilizing our proprietary mucus penetrating particle, or MPP, drug delivery technology, which we refer to as our AMPPLIFY^® technology, to address medical needs for the front of the eye. Our product candidates and programs include a proprietary regenerative biotherapy for severe ocular diseases and a pipeline of preclinical new chemical entities, or NCEs, targeted to address front and back of the eye diseases.

Our two marketed products are 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, and INVELTYS^® (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension) 1%, a topical twice-a-day ocular steroid for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. Both products apply our AMPPLIFY technology to loteprednol etabonate, or LE, a corticosteroid designed for ocular applications. The AMPPLIFY technology uses selectively-sized nanoparticles that each have a proprietary coating. We believe that these two key attributes enable even distribution of drug particles on mucosal surfaces and significantly increase drug delivery to target tissues by enhancing mobility of drug particles through mucus and preventing drug particles from becoming trapped and eliminated by mucus.

EYSUVIS is the first and only FDA-approved prescription product with an indication for the short-term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approved EYSUVIS in October 2020, and we commenced a full promotional launch of EYSUVIS in January 2021. We believe that EYSUVIS’ broad mechanism of action, rapid onset of relief of both signs and symptoms, favorable tolerability profile and potential to be complementary to existing therapies offer a favorable profile for the management of dry eye flares and other dry eye associated conditions that would benefit from short-term treatment of dry eye signs and symptoms. We further believe that these features of EYSUVIS are attractive to prescribing clinicians and EYSUVIS could become the preferred first-line prescription therapy for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, including the treatment of dry eye flares that affect the vast majority of dry eye patients.

INVELTYS is the first and only FDA-approved ocular corticosteroid product with a twice-a-day dosing regimen for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. The FDA approved INVELTYS in August 2018, and we commercially launched the product in January 2019. INVELTYS has the highest concentration (1%) of LE on the market in the United States and is formulated with our AMPPLIFY technology, which enables INVELTYS to deliver 3.75x more drug to the target ocular tissue compared to an active comparator. We believe INVELTYS offers advantages over existing post-surgical treatment options.

Upon the consummation of our acquisition of Combangio, Inc., or Combangio, on November 15, 2021, we acquired Combangio’s product candidate, CMB-012, which we now refer to as KPI-012. KPI-012 is our lead product candidate and is currently in clinical development for the treatment of persistent corneal epithelial defects, or PCED, a rare disease of impaired corneal healing. We believe the multifactorial mechanism of action of KPI-012 also makes it a platform technology, and we are evaluating KPI-012 for potential expansion to indications for rare front of the eye diseases, such as limbal stem cell deficiency, chemical burns and Sjogren’s Syndrome, as well as select rare back of the eye diseases, such as retinitis pigmentosa and optic neuritis. For a description of the financial terms of the acquisition of Combangio, see “Item 7., Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

We are also progressing our pipeline of proprietary NCE preclinical development programs targeted to address both front and back of the eye diseases. These preclinical development programs include KPI-287, our receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, or TKI, and our selective glucocorticoid receptor modulators, or SEGRMs.

KPI-287 is designed to inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, and platelet derived growth factor, or PDGF, pathways, and is administered by suprachoroidal injection for the treatment of retinal diseases, including wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD, diabetic macular edema, or DME, and retinal vein occlusion, or RVO. SEGRMs are a novel class of therapies designed to modify the downstream activity of the

Table of Contents

glucocorticoid receptors to exhibit the anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of the corticosteroid class of therapies while markedly reducing their associated side effects, which we are developing for the treatment of inflammatory diseases.

The following table describes our marketed products and the stage of each of our current clinical and preclinical development programs:

We have retained worldwide commercial rights for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and our preclinical development programs. Starting with FDA approval of INVELTYS, we have built a commercial infrastructure with our own focused, specialty sales force which now includes approximately 100 field-based commercial sales personnel. Our sales representatives promote both EYSUVIS and INVELTYS.

We own and/or exclusively license patents relating to EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012, our preclinical development programs and our AMPPLIFY technology, including U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications. The expiration dates of issued U.S. and ex-U.S. patents covering EYSUVIS and INVELTYS are in 2033. The expiration dates of the issued U.S. patents that we control covering KPI-012 are in 2040, and a portfolio of additional U.S. and ex-U.S. patent applications covering KPI-012 is currently in prosecution. The expiration dates of issued U.S. and ex-U.S. patents relating to our AMPPLIFY technology are in 2025 through 2036.

Strategy

Our goal is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapies primarily for diseases of the front and back of the eye. Key elements of our strategy include:

Table of Contents

INVELTYS is the first and only FDA approved ocular corticosteroid product with a twice-a-day dosing regimen for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. Other approved topical ocular corticosteroid products for this indication are dosed three or four times a day. In January 2019, we began to commercialize INVELTYS in the United States with our own focused, specialty sales force.

Our Products

EYSUVIS for Dry Eye Disease

Dry Eye Disease Overview

Dry eye disease is a chronic, episodic, multifactorial disease affecting the tears and ocular surface that can result in tear film instability, inflammation, discomfort, visual disturbance and ocular surface damage. While the precise cause of dry eye disease is not fully understood, it often involves impairment of the lacrimal unit, which consists of the lacrimal glands, ocular surface and the sensory and motor nerves that connect them, and has a significant inflammatory

Table of Contents

component. There is significant published research that suggests that inflammation plays a major role in the development of dry eye disease. 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. Dry eye disease is commonly treated by ophthalmologists and optometrists.

A significant number of dry eye disease patients experience acute, episodic exacerbations of their symptoms, which are commonly referred to as flares, at various times throughout the year that can cause significant discomfort and disability. A dry eye flare is defined as a rapid onset, inflammation-driven response to a variety of triggers that typically cannot be adequately managed with the patient’s ongoing therapy. As illustrated in the graphic below, these flares can be triggered by numerous factors, such as environmental stimuli related to exposure to allergens, pollution, wind and low humidity. Intense visual concentration, such as watching television or working at a computer, can also trigger flares. Other potential triggers include hormonal changes, contact lens wear, smoking and sleep deprivation, which cause ocular surface inflammation and impact tear production and/or tear film stability.

We estimate dry eye disease affects approximately 38 million people in the United States based on an estimated dry eye disease prevalence of 14.5% described below and applied to the population of the United States over 20 years old. Based on third-party academic research, we believe dry eye disease results in approximately $55 billion in direct and indirect costs in the United States each year, of which approximately $3.8 billion are direct medical costs. The exact prevalence of dry eye disease is unknown due to the difficulty in defining the disease and the lack of a single diagnostic test to confirm its presence. The Beaver Dam Offspring Study, a major epidemiological study published in 2014 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, reported that in a cohort of over 3,000 patients, dry eye disease was self-reported by 14.5% of the patients. 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. Epidemiology and market research commissioned by us indicate that there are an estimated 17.2 million patients with a diagnosis of dry eye disease in the United States. We also commissioned three surveys of 503, 297, and 500 dry eye disease patients, which we refer to as our patient surveys, in 2017, 2018, and 2020, respectively. The patient surveys included a representative set of dry eye patients based on demographics and disease characteristics, such as age, sex and therapeutic history. The patients represented a broad

Table of Contents

range of dry eye disease severity. Based upon our review of the patient surveys as well as independent studies conducted in 2020 and 2021 of 774 and 756 dry eye sufferers, respectively, we believe dry eye disease is a burdensome disease that has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients with dry eye disease.

Limitations of Existing Treatments for Dry Eye Disease

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” or lubricating eye drops, and four prescription pharmaceutical products, Restasis^®, Xiidra^®, Cequa^TM and Tyrvaya^TM.

Most over-the-counter artificial tears are palliative in nature and are intended to supplement insufficient tear production or improve tear film instability. Artificial tears typically provide only short term or temporary relief by lubricating the eyes and helping to maintain moisture on the outer surface of the eye. Artificial tears do not treat the underlying inflammatory components of dry eye disease.

In addition to over-the-counter artificial tears, Restasis, Xiidra, Cequa and Tyrvaya are sometimes prescribed as a chronic therapy for the treatment of dry eye disease. We believe that less than 10% of patients diagnosed with dry eye disease in the United States use a chronic therapy to treat their disease. Restasis and Cequa are each topically applied, ophthalmic formulations of the immunosuppressant cyclosporine. Restasis and Cequa are not approved for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, but rather for increasing tear production in patients whose tear production is presumed to be suppressed due to ocular inflammation associated with dry eye disease. Restasis frequently causes burning upon instillation, and, according to the package insert, 17% of patients in clinical trials of Restasis reported ocular burning upon instillation. Cequa frequently causes pain upon instillation, and, according to the package insert, 22% of patients in clinical trials of Cequa reported pain upon instillation of drops. Xiidra is a topically applied, ophthalmic formulation of lifitegrast, a small molecule LF1a antagonist, which was approved by the FDA in July 2016 for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. In clinical trials, the most common adverse reactions (incidence rate of approximately 5% to 25%) following the use of Xiidra were instillation-site irritation, dysgeusia, and decreased visual acuity. Tyrvaya (varenicline solution) nasal spray is a cholinergic agonist that was approved by the FDA in October 2021 to increase tear production and treat the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. According to the Tyrvaya package insert, 82% of patients reported sneezing upon instillation. Tyrvaya, like Xiidra, Restasis and Cequa, is typically used chronically for dry eye patients who have continuous symptoms. As each of these medications have a relatively long onset of action, they are not generally used for the short-term treatment of episodic dry eye flares.

We believe there is a larger proportion of dry eye patients whose symptoms are primarily episodic as opposed to chronic, and for whom a chronic therapy is not necessary and for whom EYSUVIS, an FDA-approved therapy for short-term use, can address a significant unmet need. For example, our patient surveys and the independent study of 774 dry eye sufferers indicate that approximately 75% to 90% of surveyed patients experience dry eye flares, with flares lasting on average approximately four days and occurring approximately six times per year. These results are also consistent with the 2021 independent, multi-sponsor survey of 756 dry eye sufferers indicating that they suffer a median of 5.25 flares per year lasting on average 4.9 days. In our 2021 survey of 201 eye care professionals, or ECPs, all reported that their patients have dry eye flares, but many underestimated the actual number of patients with flares. In addition, according to our patient surveys, the most common reason given by patients for discontinuing the two leading branded dry eye treatments were insufficient efficacy, side effects and product price.

EYSUVIS Opportunity in Dry Eye Disease

EYSUVIS received FDA approval for the short-term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease in October 2020 utilizing a two-week course of therapy administered four times a day. We commenced our full promotional launch of EYSUVIS in January 2021.

We believe that EYSUVIS has a favorable profile for the management of dry eye disease flares and other dry eye associated conditions, including the following attributes:

Table of Contents

We believe that these attributes make EYSUVIS attractive to prescribing clinicians for treating patients that suffer from dry eye flares, and that EYSUVIS could become the preferred first-line prescription therapy for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, including the treatment of dry eye flares.

Our current estimates of potential future revenue from sales of EYSUVIS are based, in part, on current prescription trends, anticipated changes in payer coverage, market growth assumptions and physician market research data we have commissioned that examines intent to prescribe. These estimates may be impacted by the current COVID-19 pandemic. The extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our commercialization efforts will depend on the length and severity of this pandemic and the impact on our customers, employees, vendors and government agencies, which is uncertain and cannot be predicted.

EYSUVIS Clinical Development Program

EYSUVIS was evaluated in four clinical trials. In January 2018, we announced topline results from two completed Phase 3 clinical trials, which we refer to as STRIDE 1 and STRIDE 2 (STRIDE - Short Term Relief In Dry Eye), evaluating the safety and efficacy of EYSUVIS versus vehicle (placebo) in patients with dry eye disease. In STRIDE 1, statistical significance was achieved for the primary sign endpoint of conjunctival hyperemia and the primary symptom endpoint of ocular discomfort severity change from baseline to day 15 in the intent to treat, or ITT, population; in addition, statistical significance was also achieved in STRIDE 1 for a second pre-specified primary symptom endpoint of ocular discomfort severity change from baseline to day 15 in patients with more severe baseline ocular discomfort. In STRIDE 2, statistical significance was achieved for the primary sign endpoint of conjunctival hyperemia, but statistical significance was not achieved for the primary symptom endpoint of ocular discomfort severity. EYSUVIS was generally well tolerated in both STRIDE 1 and STRIDE 2, with no clinically significant treatment-related adverse events observed during the course of either trial, and with elevations in intraocular pressure, or IOP, in both trials similar to placebo.

In October 2018, we submitted a New Drug Application, or NDA, to the FDA for EYSUVIS. In August 2019, we announced that we received a complete response letter, or CRL, from the FDA regarding this NDA. The FDA indicated that efficacy data from an additional clinical trial would be needed to support a resubmission of the NDA. Based upon the previous recommendation of the FDA, we had initiated an additional Phase 3 clinical trial, STRIDE 3, in the third quarter of 2018. In March 2020, we announced top line results from STRIDE 3, achieving statistical significance in the pre-specified primary endpoints of change from baseline to day 15 in ocular discomfort severity in the overall ITT population and in a pre-defined subgroup of patients with more severe baseline ocular discomfort. In addition, statistical significance was achieved for conjunctival hyperemia at day 15. Consistent with prior clinical

Table of Contents

experience, EYSUVIS was well-tolerated in STRIDE 3, with adverse events and intraocular pressure increases comparable to vehicle.

The positive results from STRIDE 3 for both signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, along with the positive data from the previous clinical trials of EYSUVIS, served as the basis for our NDA resubmission in April 2020. EYSUVIS received FDA approval for the short-term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease in October 2020.

EYSUVIS Customer Concentration

Three customers comprised 10% or more of our revenue attributable to EYSUVIS during the year ended December 31, 2021 and 2020. These customers comprised 48%, 26% and 23% of our revenue, respectively, during the year ended December 31, 2021 and 35%, 32% and 29% of our revenue, respectively, during the year ended December 31, 2020.

​

INVELTYS for Post-Operative Inflammation and Pain

Post-Operative Inflammation and Pain Overview

Ocular inflammation and pain are common complications following ocular surgery. In 2019, Marketscope, a third-party provider of market data, projected that the number of ocular surgeries in the United States would grow to approximately 10.1 million by 2024. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the ocular surgery market, and in 2020, there were only 7.0 million ocular surgeries reported by Marketscope, representing a decline of approximately 1.4 million from approximately 8.4 million ocular surgeries reported in 2019. In November 2021, Marketscope reported that ocular surgeries were projected to reach pre-COVID levels by the end of 2021. Commonly performed ocular surgeries include cataract, cornea, refractive, oculoplastic and glaucoma procedures. Tissue damage caused by ocular surgery leads to the production of prostaglandins, lipids that aid in recovery at the site of an injury, and increases in blood flow to the affected area, which contribute to inflammation. The standard of care for postoperative inflammation and pain includes anti-inflammatory drugs such as corticosteroids, which improve patient comfort and accelerate recovery through disruption of the inflammatory cascade.

INVELTYS was approved by the FDA on August 22, 2018 for the treatment of post-surgical inflammation and pain following all ocular surgery, and was commercially launched in the United States in January 2019. INVELTYS is the first and only twice-daily ocular corticosteroid indicated for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery.

Limitations of Existing Treatments for Post-Operative Inflammation and Pain

Loteprednol etabonate, or LE, is a unique steroid that was designed to limit side effects, such as increases in IOP and cataract formation, that are associated with other ocular steroids. The first LE containing product, Lotemax^®, was approved by the FDA in 1998. Subsequent gel and ointment formulations of Lotemax were approved by the FDA for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. Durezol^® is a topical steroid approved by the FDA for the treatment of inflammation and pain associated with ocular surgery. Durezol eye drops are dosed four times a day for two weeks followed by dose tapering based on patient response. The first generic formulations of loteprednol suspension 0.5% (Lotemax suspension) and loteprednol ophthalmic gel 0.5% (Lotemax Gel) were launched in May 2019 and February 2021, respectively, and the first generic version of Durezol was launched in September 2021.

The most commonly used ocular steroids, including Lotemax products and Durezol, are approved for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain with a three or four-times-a-day dosing regimen. This dosing regimen can be burdensome for patients as they are taking multiple eye drops following surgery, and a three or four times-a-day dosing regimen may reduce patient compliance with the prescribed medication. Other than INVELTYS, there is currently no marketed ocular steroid product with an approved twice-a-day dosing regimen.

Table of Contents

INVELTYS Opportunity in Post-Operative Inflammation and Pain

We believe that INVELTYS has a favorable profile for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery, including the following attributes:

Our current estimates of potential future revenue from sales of INVELTYS are based, in part, on current prescription trends, anticipated changes in payer coverage, market growth assumptions and physician market research data we have commissioned that examines intent to prescribe. These estimates may be impacted by the current COVID-19 pandemic. The extent of the impact of COVID-19 on our commercialization efforts will depend on the length and severity of this pandemic and the impact on our customers, employees, vendors and government agencies, which is uncertain and cannot be predicted.

​

INVELTYS Clinical Development Program

In each of the two Phase 3 clinical trials of INVELTYS in patients who had undergone cataract surgery, administration of INVELTYS two times a day for 14 days achieved statistical significance for both primary efficacy endpoints of complete resolution of inflammation at day eight maintained through day 15 with no need for rescue medication and complete resolution of pain at day eight maintained through day 15 with no need for rescue medication. In each of these trials, INVELTYS was well tolerated with similar increases in IOP, a common side effect of steroids, compared to placebo and with no treatment-related significant adverse events observed during the course of either trial.

​

INVELTYS Customer Concentration

Three customers comprised 10% or more of our revenue attributable to INVELTYS during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020. These customers comprised 47%, 30% and 21% of our revenue, respectively, during the year ended December 31, 2021 and 40%, 28% and 28% of our revenue, respectively, during the year ended December 31, 2020.

​

Our Clinical-Stage Product Candidate

​

KPI-012 for Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects

Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects Overview

Persistent corneal epithelial defects, or PCED, is a persistent non-healing corneal defect or wound that is refractory to conventional treatments. PCED is a disease of impaired corneal healing and can be the result of numerous etiologies, including (but not limited to) neurotrophic keratitis, or NK, microbial/viral keratitis, surgical epithelial debridement, corneal transplant surgery, limbal stem cell deficiency, mechanical/thermal trauma and exposure

Table of Contents

keratopathy. Normal healing is a highly regulated multifactorial process that involves numerous biologic pathways and molecules, including growth factors, cell signaling, proliferation, migration and extracellular matrix remodeling. In PCED, the normal healing process is impaired due to an imbalance of the key biomolecules that orchestrate the normal wound healing process. We believe that effective treatment of PCED across the various etiologies requires a multifactorial mechanism of action to address the impaired healing that is responsible for the defects.

​

PCED is a rare disease with an estimated incidence of 100,000 cases per year in the United States and 238,000 cases per year in the United States, European Union and Japan combined. Clinical symptoms of PCED include pain, foreign body sensation, redness, photophobia and tearing. Clinical signs include non-healing epithelial defects, stromal scarring and stomal thinning. A PCED may lead to infection, corneal ulceration, corneal perforation, scarring, opacification and significant vision loss.

​

Limitations of Existing Treatments for Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects

​

There is currently a significant unmet need for therapies to effectively treat PCED. Conventional therapies, which include bandage contact lenses, autologous serum and surgery, are usually ineffective in overcoming the dysregulation present in multiple cellular pathways that may need to be addressed to heal a PCED. Surgical procedures used in the treatment of PCED include tarsorrhaphy, corneal epithelial stem cell transplants and corneal transplants which are used to aid in restoration and maintenance of vision capabilities.

​

The only currently approved prescription product in the PCED space is OxervateÔ, indicated for the treatment of NK, which we believe to be the primary etiology for approximately one-third of PCED cases. Oxervate contains a single growth factor – nerve growth factor (NGF) – and has been demonstrated to be effective in only the subgroup of PCED cases whose underlying etiology is neurotrophic disease. Oxervate is a topical eye drop that is administered six times per day at two-hour intervals for eight weeks. Each administration of Oxervate requires the use of a vial containing the drug product, a vial adapter, a single-use pipette and disinfectant wipes.

​

KPI-012 Opportunity in Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects

​

KPI-012 is a novel, human bone-marrow derived MSC secretome composed of biologically active components secreted from the MSCs, such as growth factors, protease inhibitors, matrix proteins and neurotropic factors, that have been shown in preclinical studies by Combangio and others to facilitate corneal healing. KPI-012 is cell-free and produced from a proprietary cell bank. The drug substance for KPI-012 is produced as a chemically-defined cell-free solution followed by formulation and filling of the drug product in non-preserved single dose units. We believe that KPI-012’s multi-factorial mechanism of action has the potential to normalize the impaired healing in PCED and other severe ocular surface diseases driven by impaired healing. As such, KPI-012 offers a potentially promising approach for the treatment of PCED and other ocular surface diseases across multiple etiologies. Key biological factors contained in KPI-012 and their potential wound healing functions are shown below:

​

​

The multifactorial mechanism of action of KPI-012 is thought to be responsible for the significant wound healing activity observed in Combangio’s preclinical animal models and in the Phase 1b clinical trials. KPI-012 has received orphan drug designation from the FDA, for the treatment of PCED, and we believe KPI-012 should meet the criteria for fast-track and breakthrough designations.

​

Table of Contents

Preliminary Clinical Development Plan for KPI-012

​

We are initially developing KPI-012 for the treatment of PCED. Combangio completed a Phase 1b clinical efficacy trial in nine patients with PCED in Mexico City. Based on the results of this Phase 1b clinical trial, we plan to submit an IND application to the FDA for KPI-012 and, subject to regulatory clearance, commence a Phase 2/3 clinical trial of KPI-012 for PCED in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2022. Our planned Phase 2/3 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of KPI-012 will evaluate the safety and efficacy of various dosing regimens of KPI-012 in patients diagnosed with PCED. If the results of our planned Phase 2/3 clinical trial of KPI-012 are positive, and subject to discussions with regulatory authorities, we believe this trial can serve as the first of two required pivotal trials. If so, we plan to conduct an additional Phase 3 pivotal trial in PCED patients to support the potential submission of a BLA to the FDA.

​

Phase 1b Clinical Trial Results of KPI-012
​

Combangio conducted two Phase 1b clinical trials with KPI-012 in Mexico City, Mexico during 2020 and 2021, one in 3 subjects without active corneal disease who were dosed twice a day (25 ng/mL FNE) for one week and another in nine patients with PCED, or the PCED cohort, who were dosed twice a day (25 ng/ml FNE) for up to 8 weeks. Key inclusion criteria for the PCED cohort included:

​

The subjects were treated with KPI-012 topically twice a day, with the subjects in the safety cohort without active corneal disease treated for one week and patients in the PCED cohort treated between one to eight weeks. KPI-012 was generally well tolerated during both trials, with only one subject experiencing treatment-related TEAEs (mild and transient itching, red eye, and blurred vision after study drug administration). There were no deaths or treatment-related serious adverse events during either trial. One subject in the PCED cohort had to withdraw from the trial due to a protocol screening violation.

​

As depicted in Figure 1 below, six of the eight patients in the PCED cohort (75%) who completed the trial achieved complete healing of the lesion after four weeks of treatment, with one additional patient experiencing some clinical improvement but not complete healing. Four of eight patients in the PCED cohort (50%) achieved complete healing of the lesion after one week of treatment and the other two patients achieved complete healing within two to four weeks of initiation of treatment with KPI-012. All six of the patients who achieved complete healing remained healed through the follow-up period of the trial, which ranged between eight to 19 weeks. Of the two patients who did not show complete healing in the trial, clinical investigators noted some clinical improvement in one of the patients (Patient 2-05), but the corneal staining images did not show complete healing of the defect. Patient 2-04 had a PCED in a blind eye which was perhaps too severe to respond to a pharmaceutical intervention. Patient 2-05 had a PCED that had existed for 871 days before treatment; corneal specialists have advised that it is rare for a PCED to have persisted for this duration and that it could be indicative of systemic disease.

Table of Contents

​

​

Figure 1. Summary of Phase 1b clinical trial of KPI-012 for PCED, including representative images for a healed patient study eye. The Day 1 images were taken on the first day of treatment, prior to first KPI-012 administration, with the fluorescein (green) stain demarking the corneal wound boundary of the study eye image. The Day 7 images were taken on the last day of KPI-012 treatment showing the PCED completely healed. The images on the left depict the study eye viewed under blue light to visualize the PCED with fluorescein stain.

​

Significant pain relief was reported by patients in the PCED cohort within one week of treatment with KPI-012, as shown in Figure 2 below. Of the six patients who reported pain at the baseline, all six patients reported a reduction in pain after one week of treatment, four patients reported a pain score of zero after one week of treatment and all six patients reported a pain score of zero after three weeks of treatment.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

Figure 2. PCED cohort patient-reported score of pain level due to defect using a visual analogue scale, or VAS, which is a subjective rating of pain levels on a scale of 0 to 10 where a score of 0 represents no pain at all and a score of 10 represents the worst possible pain.

​

KPI-012 Preclinical Studies and Results

​

KPI-012 has been evaluated by Combangio in a number of preclinical studies. In these studies, KPI-012 promoted rapid ocular re-epithelialization and mitigated scarring and neovascularization in a number of well-established animal models.

​

​

​

In vitro Human Corneal Epithelial Wound Closure Assay

​

The therapeutic mechanism of action of KPI-012 involves stimulating corneal re-epithelialization and ocular surface healing. Combangio evaluated KPI-012 in an in vitro wound gap assay developed using human corneal epithelial cells. In this assay, a mechanical defect (cell-free region) was introduced into a two-dimensional monolayer of epithelial cells to create a wound. The ‘injured’ monolayer was then treated with KPI-012 and the cell free region was monitored for wound closure as show in Figure 3 below. In this assay, KPI-012 exhibited a dose-dependent and potent wound closure response.

​

​

Table of Contents

Figure 3. Representative images from an in vitro human corneal epithelial wound closure assay. A mechanical wound instilled to a corneal epithelial cell monolayer on Day 1 healed after treatment with KPI-012 (Day 4 of treatment), but not negative control (vehicle). Depicted images are wounded cell monolayers stained with Gentian Violet.

​

In vivo Mechanical Wound Studies of Activity

​

Combangio also evaluated the activity of KPI-012 in a mechanical corneal injury mouse model. In this model, a circular area on the surface of the cornea was debrided (mechanically scraped) to remove the epithelial layer and create a circular wound.

​

Topical formulations of vehicle or KPI-012 were administered twice daily to the wounded eyes. As shown in Figure 4 below, mice treated with KPI-012 exhibited prominent wound healing at day four of the treatment period, while the vehicle-treated wounded eyes remained largely unhealed. Further, treatment with KPI-012 resulted in reduced corneal haze and scarring relative to treatment with vehicle. Results of this mouse model suggested that at Day 4 of treatment KPI-012 promoted in vivo closure of cornea mechanical wounds relative to vehicle control.

Figure 4. Representative images of wounded mouse corneas after mechanical injury (Day 1). Depicted is the fluorescein (green) stain, which demarks the corneal wound boundary. Treatment with KPI-012 rapidly healed the wound size (as indicated by the disappearance of the green stain by Day 4) relative to vehicle control-treated eyes.

​

A second confirmatory mechanical corneal injury mouse model study was performed according to the method described above using a different lot of KPI-012. The study yielded similar results, with KPI-012 promoting wound healing relative to vehicle as well as exhibiting dose-dependent potency dynamics. After four days of treatment, KPI-012 treated eyes exhibited more pronounced reduction in wound staining relative to vehicle-treated eyes, as shown in Figure 5A below, and after five days most KPI-012 treated eyes completely healed, as shown in Figure 5B below. Further, a KPI-012 formulation lacking key biologic factors known to mediate wound healing exhibited reduced healing capacity in the study, supporting the selection of KPI-012’s critical quality attributes.

​

Table of Contents

Figure 5. Summary of second mouse corneal mechanical study. (A) Representative images of wounded mouse corneas after mechanical injury (Day 1) and after four days of treatment with KPI-012 or vehicle (Day 4). Depicted is the fluorescein (green) stain, which demarks the corneal wound boundary. Treatment with KPI-012 rapidly healed the wound size (as indicated by the disappearance of the green stain by Day 4) relative to vehicle control-treated eyes; (B) Treatment with KPI-012 resulted in more rapid complete healing and a greater percentage of completely healed eyes (dashed line), relative to vehicle-treated eyes (solid line).

​

Rabbit Tolerability Study

​

To evaluate tolerability of KPI-012, Combangio conducted a 15-day good laboratory practice toxicology study following ocular instillation of KPI-012 in rabbits. The purpose of the study was to determine the ocular and systemic toxicity of KPI-012 following repeated topical ocular instillation for 15 days. One group of rabbits was administered KPI-012 three times a day via topical ocular instillation to the right eye (the low dose) and another group was administered KPI-012 six times a day via topical ocular instillation to the right eye (the high dose), in each case with a one-week recovery period. The left eye served as a contralateral control and received vehicle at the same frequency as the KPI-012-treated right eye. All rabbits survived to the end of the study, and no gross lesions and abnormalities were recorded. There were no observed test article-related findings on body weight, intraocular pressure, clinical pathology, gross pathology, organ weights, ophthalmologic examination or ocular histopathology. The data of the toxicology study supported that repeated daily topical administration of KPI-012, at both three times a day and six times a day for 15 days, was well-tolerated and resulted in no overt toxicities in rabbits.

​

Other Potential Indications for KPI-012

​

We believe the multifactorial mechanism of action of KPI-012 also makes it a platform technology, and we are evaluating KPI-012 for potential expansion to indications for rare front of the eye diseases, such as limbal stem cell deficiency, chemical burns and Sjogren’s Syndrome, as well as select rare back of the eye diseases, such as retinitis pigmentosa and optic neuritis.

​

The wound-healing mechanism of action of KPI-012 also potentially enables partnering opportunities in chronic and/or severe indications outside of the eye such as diabetic foot ulcer.

​

Our Preclinical Development Programs

​

We are progressing a pipeline of proprietary NCE preclinical development programs, targeted to address both front and back of the eye diseases, including our TKI program for retinal diseases, and our SEGRM program.

​

TKI Program for Retinal Disease

Retinal Disease Overview

There are a range of retinal diseases and conditions that adversely affect vision, including age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, diabetic retinopathy, or DR, diabetic macular edema, or DME, and retinal vein occlusion, or

Table of Contents

RVO. These diseases frequently result in damage to the vasculature of the eye, leading to poor function and/or leaking of existing vessels and often leading to proliferation of new, abnormal and leaky blood vessels in the back of the eye. These conditions can lead to retinal damage, scarring, and irreversible loss of vision.

Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)

AMD is a degeneration of the macula of the retina that leads to impairment and loss of central vision. There are two categories of AMD: “Dry” AMD, which involves slow deterioration of the retina with submacular drusen, atrophy, loss of macular function and central vision impairment; and “wet” AMD, which involves the leakage of existing blood vessels often accompanied by the growth of abnormal and leaky blood vessels under the retina and macula, resulting in edema, tissue damage and rapid loss of central vision. If untreated, neovascularization in wet AMD patients typically results in significant vision loss and the formation of a scar under the macular region of the retina. Most cases begin as Dry AMD, which can progress to wet AMD. Wet AMD is a leading cause of blindness in people over the age of 55 in the United States and the European Union. The incidence of wet AMD increases substantially with age, and we expect that the number of cases of wet AMD will increase with growth of the elderly population in the United States.

The current standard of care for wet AMD is intravitreal injection of biologic agents that target VEGF, one of the key proteins involved in neovascularization.

Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) and Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)

DR is an ocular complication of diabetes involving changes of retinal blood vessels that lead to significant visual impairment. These changes include dysfunction of retinal vasculature (nonproliferative retinopathy), with vascular occlusion and increased permeability, leading to retinal hypoxia and DME. The disease can further progress to proliferative retinopathy with retinal neovascularization, hemorrhage and retinal detachment.

Among an estimated 19.8 million adults in the United States aged forty years and older known to have diabetes, the prevalence rate for DME is 3.8%, or approximately 746,000 people. DME is the leading cause of visual impairment and blindness in Americans between 20 and 74 years old.

Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO)

RVO is a blockage of the small veins that carry blood away from the retina. The disease can cause sudden blurring or vision loss in all or part of one eye. RVO has been estimated to affect 16 million people worldwide.

Table of Contents

Limitations of Existing Treatments for Retinal Disease

VEGF is a signaling protein that plays a critical role in the formation of new blood vessels and increased permeability, two pathological processes that contribute to the vision loss associated with certain retinal diseases. Several TKIs have been investigated in AMD patients in clinical trials. These inhibitors have been administered in a variety of ways, including intravitreal injection, oral administration, and topical dosing. To date, no TKIs have been approved in the United States for the treatment of ocular diseases. We believe that there is a substantial market opportunity for a safe and effective VEGF receptor TKIs to treat various retinal diseases, such as AMD, DR, DME, RVO and related neovascular diseases.

The PDGF family of signaling proteins function through the PDGF receptor, a receptor tyrosine kinase, or RTK, that plays a critical role in the formation of new blood vessels and fibrotic scar, two pathological processes that contribute to the vision loss associated with ocular disease. The combined inhibition of both VEGF and PDGF signaling pathways through their respective RTK are believed to be beneficial in treating certain retinal diseases.

The most common treatments for retinal diseases involve administration of biologic agents that block the VEGF pathway and prevent or retard the blood vessel leakage and/or proliferation. Unfortunately, clinicians must inject these biologic agents directly into the eye via frequent intravitreal injections, or IVTs, to maintain vision. Sales of the two leading IVT biologic agents used to treat eye diseases associated with abnormal blood vessel proliferation, Genentech’s Lucentis^® and Regeneron’s Eylea^®, were $1.9 billion and $4.9 billion, respectively, in the United States in 20208. A new biologic form of Novartis’ Beovu^® was approved in October 2019 and had approximately $200 million in worldwide sales in 2020. An effective therapeutic to treat retinal diseases with improved dosing regimen would bring significant benefits to patients.

TKI Program for the Potential Treatment of Wet AMD, DR, DME and RVO

Through our TKI program we have developed several novel, potent, and selective TKIs, including KPI-287, which can inhibit the VEGF pathway and the platelet derived growth factor, or PDGF, pathway. In vitro assays show that KPI-287 has a sub-nanomolar potency against the VEGF receptor-2 kinase and good selectivity against other growth factor receptor kinases, cell cycle kinases and other off-target receptors. We are developing KPI-287 via suprachoroidal injection for the treatment of various retinal diseases.

​

In preclinical rabbit studies, topical administration of KPI-287 achieved concentrations in tissues in the retina and the choroid well above the concentrations required for in vitro inhibition of 50% of the VEGF receptor 2 kinase activity. As shown in the figures below, the concentrations observed in these rabbit studies were higher than the concentrations observed in similar rabbit studies with topical administration of axitinib, which is the most common TKI currently being developed for retinal disease.

Tissues collected after a single topical dose 5% KPI-287 suspension vs 5% axitinib suspension in Dutch Belted rabbits

In addition, in a rabbit model of VEGF induced vascular leakage, topically applied KPI-287 reduced leakage to an extent similar to that achieved with an IVT injection of Genentech’s Avastin, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody that binds to VEGF. Avastin is approved as an anticancer agent, but is widely used off-label in ophthalmic diseases. In this model, vascular leakage of fluorescein was induced by IVT injections of VEGF. The extent of fluorescein leakage observed in various treatment groups was scored in a blinded fashion on a scale from 0 to 4, with 0

Table of Contents

being no leakage and 4 being heavy leakage. As shown in the photographs below, the magnitude of the effect achieved with topical administration of KPI-287 5.0% was similar to that observed with IVT injection of Avastin.

In addition, the magnitude of effect observed with KPI-287 was greater than the magnitude of effect observed with topical administration of axitinib in studies similar to those we have conducted.

Axitinib (5% q4 hr) or KPI-287 (5% QID) dosed topically days 1 through 6, with VEGF challenge on day 3, and efficacy evaluation (fluorescein angiography) on day 6 (72 hrs post VEGF challenge). IVT Avastin used as positive control.

We are currently conducting additional preclinical studies with KPI-287 administered via suprachoroidal administration to evaluate both the pharmacokinetics and efficacy over six months following a suprachoroidal injections.

Table of Contents

These studies are designed to evaluate the potential of KPI-287 for sustained durable delivery inhibiting VEGF induced ocular disease associated with vision loss.

We believe that an effective therapy with an improved delivery for patients with retinal diseases such as AMD, DR, DME and RVO will be a significant advancement in the treatment of these diseases and could increase patient compliance and reduce treatment burden in patients suffering from these sight threatening diseases.

SEGRM Program for Inflammatory Diseases

Activation of the glucocorticoid receptor can result in regulation of gene expression along both the transactivation, or TA, and transrepression, or TR, pathways. There is considerable third-party scientific evidence that the TR pathway alone may be sufficient for anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activity. Furthermore, we believe the TA pathway is likely responsible for the adverse effects associated with ocular and systemic administration of corticosteroids, including elevated IOP, hypertension, and osteoporosis.

SEGRMs are a novel class of compounds designed to selectively regulate gene expression through the TR pathway while avoiding or minimizing the TA pathway. As a result, we believe our SEGRM program has the potential for anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activity comparable to corticosteroids while markedly reducing their associated side effects. We plan to study our SEGRMs for the potential treatment of inflammatory diseases. Our SEGRM program is currently in the lead optimization stage, and we are aiming to identify a development candidate for the program.

Table of Contents

Our AMPPLIFY Technology

Opportunities in Drug Delivery across Eye and other Mucosal Barriers

The body is surrounded by boundary tissues that play the important physiological role of preventing foreign bodies from penetrating into the body. The mucus that coats these tissues, the eyes, lung, cervical/vaginal tract and gastrointestinal tract, for example, serves as a protective barrier to trap and eliminate particulate matter, such as viruses, bacteria and allergens, before these agents can enter the underlying tissues and cause infections or elicit reactions. However, in playing this pivotal role of protection, mucus can also hinder medical treatments by limiting the penetration of medications to mucus-protected tissues, thereby reducing their therapeutic effect.

Mucus also makes it difficult to treat many ophthalmic diseases. The body can rapidly eliminate drugs delivered to the eye via the tear film protecting the surface of the eye, which can significantly limit the effectiveness of these drugs. This is the case both for drugs designed to treat conditions in the front of the eye, such as dry eye disease and post-operative inflammation and pain, as well as for drugs designed to treat conditions in the back of the eye, such as retinal diseases. We believe that our proprietary MPP technology, which we refer to as our AMPPLIFY technology, has the potential to address this clear unmet medical need for more efficient delivery of drugs. Our AMPPLIFY technology may have applications to other areas of the body that are protected by mucus, such as the lung, cervical/vaginal tract and gastrointestinal tract. We have demonstrated in preclinical studies that AMPPLIFY technology can be used to increase mucus penetration of over 15 classes of drugs.

MPP Technology

Our MPPs are selectively sized nanoparticles, with average diameters of approximately 330 nanometers, and have noncovalent proprietary coatings. We believe that these two key attributes enable even distribution of drug particles on mucosal surfaces and significantly increase drug delivery to target tissues by enhancing mobility of drug particles through mucus and preventing drug particles from becoming trapped and eliminated by mucus. We believe this enables enhanced efficacy at equal or lower doses as well as less frequent dosing for improved patient convenience and compliance.

In a preclinical study, MPPs or conventional particles in a hypotonic solution were administered intravaginally to mice. Ten minutes after administration, the vaginal tissues were dissected and stained. The image on the left below shows the distribution of the conventional particles and the image on the right below shows the distribution of the MPPs. The conventional particles aggregated in the lumenal mucus and did not reach the target tissues. In contrast, the MPPs coated the entire vaginal epithelium, including all the target surfaces.

​

Table of Contents

Source:    Laura M. Ensign et al., Mucus-Penetrating Nanoparticles for Vaginal Drug Delivery Protect Against Herpes Simplex Virus, Science Translational Medicine, June 14, 2012.

Also, for ophthalmic applications, while a significant portion of conventionally formulated ophthalmic drugs are rapidly eliminated via the tear film, we have shown that our MPPs are capable of achieving higher concentration on the surface of the eye, thereby enabling the active drug substance to reach cells in the underlying ocular tissue at higher levels.

We aim to leverage our MPP technology, to enhance delivery of drugs into the eye. In preclinical studies, KPI-121 demonstrated favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics and increased drug penetration into ocular tissues as compared to a branded form of LE. In a preclinical study of ocular inflammation in rabbits, KPI-121 0.5% administered four times a day, or QID, showed a larger reduction of inflammation as compared to a branded form of LE 0.5% given QID, as measured by the mean aqueous humor cell counts after intravitreal injection of lipopolysaccharide. We also administered either 0.4% KPI-121 or 0.5% branded LE to the eyes of two groups of rabbits. As illustrated in the line graph below, the concentrations of LE in aqueous humor, a transparent gelatinous fluid that fills the anterior and posterior chambers between the lens and the cornea, of the rabbit eyes treated with KPI-121 were more than three times higher than the rabbit eyes treated with branded LE 30 minutes after dosing, at a 20% lower concentration.

Table of Contents

LE in Aqueous Humor

We administered KPI-121 0.5%, LE suspension 0.5%, or 0.5% of an LE non-MPP nanoparticle, to the eyes of three groups of rabbits and measured the amount of LE that was delivered to the cornea. The non-MPP nanoparticle was similar in size to our MPP nanoparticles but lacked the proprietary surface coating used in our MPP nanoparticles. As illustrated in the line graph below, concentrations of LE in the cornea of the rabbit eyes treated with KPI-121 were more than three times higher than the concentrations in rabbits treated with branded LE between 20 and 40 minutes after dosing. In addition, the rabbit eyes treated with the non-MPP nanoparticles had concentrations of LE similar to that in the rabbit eyes treated with branded LE and did not display the improved drug bioavailability properties observed with KPI-121. We believe these results highlight the importance of our proprietary MPP technology and show that KPI-121’s improved pharmacokinetic profile has the potential to reduce the dosing strength and/or frequency of administration of LE with KPI-121 as compared to LE suspension 0.5%.

LE in Cornea

We also have demonstrated the potential of our MPP nanoparticles to increase the mucus penetration of over fifteen classes of drugs. While our primary focus is in ophthalmology, in preclinical studies, our MPP technology has been effective in delivering drugs to the lungs, cervical/vaginal tract, gastrointestinal tract and other mucus-protected

Table of Contents

tissues. We have the ability to vary the rate of drug release as appropriate for the targeted disease state and tissue. As a result, drugs can be delivered either in rapid release formulations or as sustained release formulations that slowly release drug over a time period that ranges from hours to days.

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, we face competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Our products compete, and any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete, with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Our competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies. Many of our 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, sales 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, 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 EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and any other product candidates that we develop are the product or product candidate’s efficacy, safety, method of administration, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of insurance coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected because in many cases insurers or other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products.

Competition in Dry Eye Disease

The current disease management approaches for dry eye disease in the United States includes non-pharmaceutical therapies and pharmaceutical therapies. Non-pharmaceutical therapies include over the counter artificial tear eye drops, which are palliative and used on an intermittent or chronic basis to provide short-term symptomatic relief of dryness and irritation; hot compresses for the eye and lid hygiene management; devices, such as punctal plugs that are inserted into the tear ducts to inhibit tear drainage, resulting in more moisture on the surface of the eye.

Pharmaceutical therapies for dry eye disease include on label prescription drugs, including Restasis^®, Xiidra^®, Cequa^TM and Tyrvaya™ which are the only prescription pharmaceutical products other than EYSUVIS that are approved in the United States for use in patients with dry eye disease; off label prescription drugs, including topical steroid drops and/or other similar products, which are sometimes prescribed for treatment of dry eye disease; and various drugs that are produced by compounding pharmacies. Generic versions of Restasis have been available in the United States since February 2022. Restasis and Cequa are both topical cyclosporine formulations that are approved for increasing tear production in patients whose tear production is presumed to be suppressed due to ocular inflammation associated with dry eye disease. Xiidra is a topical anti-inflammatory therapy approved for treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. Tyrvaya (varenicline solution) nasal spray is a cholinergic agonist that was approved by the FDA in October 2021 to increase tear production and treat the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease.

EYSUVIS is indicated for the short-term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, which includes dry eye flares. Any product that is developed for the treatment of the signs and/or symptoms of dry eye disease could directly compete with EYSUVIS. There are several product candidates in preclinical and clinical

Table of Contents

development in the United States for the treatment of dry eye disease. These product candidates are being developed by pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies of various sizes, such as Aldeyra Therapeutics’ reproxalap ophthalmic solution, Novaliq’s CyclAsol and NOV03, which has been licensed to Bausch Health Companies Inc. and others.

Based on publicly available information, we have identified various other product candidates in clinical development for the chronic treatment of dry eye disease in the United States. If any of these product candidates is approved and such product candidate either effectively treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease or reduces the frequency of flares in dry eye patients, it could reduce patient demand for EYSUVIS.

Competition in Inflammation and Pain Following Ocular Surgery

Following ocular surgery, topical steroids are commonly prescribed to manage and prevent complications from post-operative inflammation. Topical steroid drops are the main competition to INVELTYS for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. The current branded market leaders for topical steroids in the United States, based on revenue, are Lotemax^® products and Durezol^®. Generic topical steroid formulations consist mainly of products containing prednisolone, fluorometholone or dexamethasone. In addition, the first generic formulations of loteprednol suspension 0.5% (Lotemax suspension) and loteprednol ophthalmic gel 0.5% (Lotemax Gel) were launched in May 2019 and February 2021, respectively, and the first generic version of Durezol was launched in September 2021.

There are also non-topical formulations of ocular steroids that have been approved and/or marketed. Eyepoint Pharmaceutical launched Dexycu^®, an intraocular suspension of dexamethasone for the treatment of post-operative inflammation, in July 2019. Also in July 2019, Ocular Therapeutix launched Dextenza^®, an intracanalicular insert of dexamethasone, for the treatment of ocular pain and inflammation following ophthalmic surgery. There are also a number of companies in the United States developing products and therapies in preclinical research and clinical development for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. In addition, there are various formulations of steroids that are produced by compounding pharmacies and that are in drop form or are injected into the eye following ocular surgery.

Competition in PCED

There is currently a significant unmet need for therapies to effectively treat PCED. Conventional therapies, which include bandage contact lenses, autologous serum and surgery, are usually ineffective in overcoming the dysregulation present in multiple cellular pathways that may need to be addressed to heal a PCED. Surgical procedures used in the treatment of PCED include tarsorrhaphy, corneal epithelial stem cell transplants and corneal transplants which are used to aid in restoration and maintenance of vision capabilities.

There is one approved prescription pharmaceutical product in the PCED space. Oxervate (cenegermin-bkbj), which was approved in August 2018 for the treatment of NK, a degenerative disease characterized by decreased corneal sensitivity and poor corneal healing, which we believe to be the primary underlying etiology of approximately one-third of all PCED cases. Oxervate is a topical eye drop that is administered six times per day at two-hour intervals for eight weeks. Each administration of Oxervate requires the use of a vial containing the drug product, a vial adapter, a single-use pipette and disinfectant wipes.

To our knowledge, there is currently only one product candidate in active clinical development for the treatment of a broad PCED population. ST266, an eye drop, is currently being studied in a Phase 2b clinical trial in patients with PCED and is being developed by Noveome Biotherapeutics Inc. ST266 is a secretome produced from amnion-derived epithelial cells from donated full-term placentas.

A number of companies are pursuing development of product candidates for the treatment of NK.

Competition in Retinal Disease

Several therapies have been developed to block the effects of VEGF by binding to and sequestering the protein. These include Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Eylea, Genentech, Inc.’s Lucentis and Avastin, and Novartis’ Beovu.

Table of Contents

Avastin is approved as an anticancer agent, but is widely used off-label in ophthalmic diseases. All of these therapies are administered by intravitreal injections and must be regularly dosed for optimal efficacy.

In addition to the anti-VEGF therapies, there also are marketed drug delivery systems, or DDS, that are used to treat retinal diseases, notably: Ozurdex^®, which releases dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, and is marketed by Allergan; Iluvien^®, which releases fluocinolone acetonide, a corticosteroid, and is marketed by Alimera Sciences; and Yutiq^TM, which releases fluocinolone acetonide, a corticosteroid, and is marketed by Eyepoint.

There are several wet-AMD product candidates in clinical development, including those being developed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Kodiak Sciences, Clearside Biomedical, Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, and Ocular Therapeutix. There are also a number of preclinical research programs being conducted by third parties to develop treatments for retinal diseases. We expect that product candidates currently in clinical development, or that could enter clinical development in the near future, may represent significant competition if approved. These product candidates may provide efficacy, safety, convenience and other benefits that are not provided by currently marketed therapies.

Competition in Ocular Surface Disease

Ocular surface conditions, which include dry eye disease, are currently treated with a variety of therapies, including branded and generic corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Corticosteroids are frequently used for the treatment of anterior segment conditions, including dry eye disease and for the treatment of post-surgical inflammation. Corticosteroids are also frequently used for the treatment of wet-AMD and diabetic eye disease as second line to the anti-VEGF therapies. We are developing our SEGRM program to be an alternative to corticosteroids for the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases.

Sales and Marketing

In January 2019, we began commercializing INVELTYS in the United States with our own focused, specialty sales force. During late 2020 and in 2021, we expanded our sales force, which now includes approximately 100 field-based commercial sales personnel. Our sales force promotes EYSUVIS and INVELTYS.

We have not yet established our own commercial organization or distribution capabilities specific to KPI-012. We believe that we will be able to commercialize KPI-012, if approved, for the treatment of PCED with a small, targeted, internal sales force in the United States and potentially other major markets.

We expect to explore commercialization of EYSUVIS and potentially other product candidates, including KPI-012, if approved, in certain markets outside the United States utilizing a variety of collaboration, co-promotion distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of commercial quantities or preclinical or clinical supply of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any product candidates, including KPI-012. We utilize our substantial inhouse expertise and know-how to develop and scale up our manufacturing processes before these processes are transferred to third-party contract manufacturers, and to understand and establish controls of critical process parameters. We also have personnel with deep product development experience who actively manage the third-party contract manufacturers producing EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and KPI-012 and plan to use such personnel to manage third-party contract manufacturers for any products that we may develop in the future.

EYSUVIS and INVELTYS Manufacturing

EYSUVIS and INVELTYS are currently manufactured at qualified contract manufacturing facilities in compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, regulations. Our third-party manufacturers are subject to FDA inspections from time to time.

We have supply agreements in place with these contract manufacturers to support commercial, clinical and registration manufacturing, release testing, registration stability, and labeling and packaging.

Table of Contents

Woodstock Commercial Supply Agreement. In June 2016, we entered into a Commercial Supply Agreement, or the Woodstock Agreement, which we amended in February 2018, March 2020 and December 2020, with Woodstock Sterile Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC), or Woodstock, pursuant to which Woodstock has agreed to manufacture and supply to us, and we have agreed to purchase from Woodstock, a combined minimum amount of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS for commercial use. The Woodstock Agreement had an initial term of eight years from August 22, 2018, which is the date INVELTYS was approved for commercial sale in the United States. Pursuant to the March 2020 amendment, the initial term was extended through June 30, 2030. The Woodstock Agreement is subject to three-year automatic renewal periods after the initial term, absent termination by either party in accordance with the terms of the Woodstock Agreement. The Woodstock Agreement provides for pricing structured on a tiered basis, with the price reduced as the volume of products ordered increases. Prior to the March 2020 amendment, we had annual minimum purchase requirements for each of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS. However, pursuant to the March 2020 amendment, the annual minimum purchase requirements are now determined on an aggregate basis for the two products. We may cancel any purchase order under the Woodstock Agreement, subject to our minimum purchase obligations. Each party has the right to terminate the Woodstock Agreement for customary reasons such as material breach and bankruptcy. The Woodstock Agreement contains provisions relating to compliance by Woodstock with cGMP, indemnification, confidentiality, dispute resolution and other customary matters for an agreement of this kind.

Altasciences Commercial Supply Agreement. In October 2017, we entered into an Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement, or the Altasciences Agreement, with Alliance Contract Pharma, LLC, which was assigned to Altasciences company, or Altasciences, pursuant to which Altasciences has agreed to provide to us, and we have agreed to purchase from Altasciences, bulk intermediates. The Altasciences Agreement provides for pricing structured on a tiered basis, with the price reduced as the volume of product ordered increases. Under the Altasciences Agreement, we will provide a forecast of orders for the quantities we believe we will require, and forecasted quantities will become binding at a certain point before the firm delivery date set forth in the forecast. Unless earlier terminated pursuant to its terms, the Altasciences Agreement has an initial term of ten years, after which it continues until terminated. Each party has the right to terminate the Altasciences Agreement for customary reasons such as material breach and bankruptcy. In addition, we have the right to terminate the Altasciences Agreement at any time for any or no reason upon sufficient advance notice, in which case we would owe payment to Altasciences for any firm orders and certain raw materials. The Altasciences Agreement contains provisions relating to compliance by Altasciences with cGMP, indemnification, confidentiality, dispute resolution and other customary matters for an agreement of this kind.

Chemo Iberica Manufacturing and Supply Agreement. In January 2017, we entered into a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, or the Chemo Agreement, with Chemo Iberica SA, or Chemo, pursuant to which Chemo has agreed to manufacture and supply to us, and we have agreed to purchase from Chemo, bulk supply of LE, with pricing structured on a per-kilogram basis. Under the Chemo Agreement, we will provide a forecast of orders for the quantities of LE we believe we will require, and we commit to purchasing 75% of the forecasted quantities. We can alter portions of a forecast at any time, except that, without Chemo’s consent, we cannot alter a portion of the forecast less than ninety days before the period to which such portion pertains. Unless earlier terminated pursuant to its terms, the Chemo Agreement has an initial term of seven years, after which it renews in two year increments unless either party gives notice of nonrenewal at least one year in advance. Each party has the right to terminate the Chemo Agreement for customary reasons such as material breach and bankruptcy. The Chemo Agreement contains provisions relating to compliance by Chemo with cGMP, indemnification, confidentiality, dispute resolution and other customary matters for an agreement of this kind.

KPI-012 Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities for KPI-012. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of both drug substance and finished drug product for KPI-012 for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture of KPI-012 if it receives marketing approval. We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for packaging, labeling, sterilization, storage, distribution and other production logistics. We have only limited agreements in place with respect to the manufacturing of KPI-012, and these arrangements do not extend to commercial supply. We obtain supplies of drug substance and finished drug product for KPI-012 on a purchase order basis and do not have long term committed supply arrangements with respect to KPI-012.

Table of Contents

Manufacturing biologics is complex, especially in large quantities. Biologic products must be made consistently and in compliance with a clearly defined manufacturing process. KPI-012 is a bone-marrow derived mesenchymal stem cell secretome therapeutic composed of biologically active components, including protease inhibitors and growth factors, and is produced from a proprietary cell bank. The manufacturing process for KPI-012 is comprised of three stages: (1) cultivation of mesenchymal stem cells from a working cell bank and production of unprocessed conditioned media (cell-free secretome), (2) production of drug substance as a chemically defined solution and (3) formulation and filling of drug product. While the drug product for Combangio’s early research and Phase 1b clinical trials was cultivated using a planar culture model, we plan to implement a bioreactor cultivation model for our planned clinical trials and for commercial supply of KPI-012. We are continuing the process of scaling up our manufacturing processes and capabilities with our third-party manufacturers to support longer term clinical development. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance.

KPI-012 drug product is manufactured from a vial of a working cell bank, which in turn was produced from a vial of master cell bank. KPI-012 master cell bank and working cell bank is stored in two separate locations. It is possible that we could lose the cell bank in both locations and have our manufacturing severely impacted by the need to replace the cell bank.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends significantly 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 seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

As of March 1, 2022, we owned 47 U.S. issued patents and 18 U.S. patent applications, as well as 90 foreign issued patents and 91 foreign patent applications (including Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications). We exclusively licensed a total of 38 U.S. issued patents and 14 U.S. patent applications, as well as 54 foreign issued patents and 26 foreign patent applications including original filings, continuations and divisional applications. Our patent portfolio includes the following patents and patent applications that we own or exclusively license:

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 U.S. 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 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. We cannot provide any assurance that any patent term extension with respect to any U.S. patent will be obtained and, if obtained, the duration of such extension.

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, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, if permitted under the applicable laws, regulations, and rules and 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. However, we cannot provide any assurances that any such patent term extension of any patent will be obtained and, if obtained, the duration of such extension.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patents, 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, and obtain and maintain ownership of certain technologies, in part, by confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

Table of Contents

License Agreements

The Johns Hopkins University

In November 2009, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with JHU, which was amended in November 2012, May 2014, August 2014, June 2018 and July 2020 and amended in part in October 2014 by the JHU settlement agreement described below. We refer to the amended license agreement with JHU as the JHU license agreement. Pursuant to the JHU license agreement, JHU granted us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under specified patent rights covering various aspects of MPP technology, to research, develop, make, use and sell products and provide services in any field. JHU also granted us a non-exclusive license to use specified know-how with limits on JHU’s right to license the know-how to other commercial entities.

Financial Terms

In connection with the JHU license agreement, we paid JHU an upfront license fee in the low tens of thousands of dollars and issued to JHU a low single digit percentage of our common stock. We also reimbursed JHU for the prosecution and maintenance costs incurred by JHU for the licensed patent rights prior to our entering into the JHU license agreement, and we are responsible for all of the ongoing costs relating to the prosecution and maintenance of the JHU patent rights licensed to us. We paid JHU fees in the low tens of thousands of dollars upon entering into certain of the amendments to the JHU license agreement.

In connection with the JHU license agreement and the JHU settlement agreement described below, we are obligated to make certain future payments to JHU. We paid JHU $112,500 in minimum annual royalty and running fees in the aggregate in 2021. We are obligated to pay JHU annual minimum royalties that will not exceed approximately $112,500 per year in the future. In addition, we must pay JHU a tiered royalty rate in the low single digits on annual net sales by us or our affiliates of products or services covered by a valid issued claim, or certain pending claims, of a licensed JHU patent right in the country of sale, from which we may, under specified circumstances, offset portions of amounts we must pay as royalties on other patent rights in order to commercialize a licensed product or licensed service up to a maximum reduction of a mid double digit percentage. We must also pay a percentage, in the high single digits, of certain consideration we or our affiliates receive from sublicensing rights under the licensed JHU intellectual property, subject to specified offsets and deductions. We may offset against each minimum annual payment the royalties and sublicense income that we pay to JHU in the preceding twelve-month period. We are obligated to pay JHU milestone fees not to exceed $750,000 in connection with the commercial sales of EYSUVIS in the U.S., and certain ex-US countries in the aggregate, if certain development and commercial events are achieved. We also are obligated to pay to JHU certain remaining milestone payments for the development of a third and fourth product under the JHU license agreement, which will not exceed approximately $1.7 million in the aggregate, if certain development and commercial events are achieved. The JHU patent rights sublicensed to us by GrayBug under the JHU settlement agreement described below are considered in the same way as the JHU patent rights directly licensed to us by JHU for purposes of determining these payments.

Diligence Obligations

We are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and introduce the licensed products and licensed services to the market, including developing licensed products suitable for different indications, consistent with sound and reasonable business practice and judgment, and, after introducing a licensed product or licensed service into the market, we must endeavor to keep licensed products and licensed services reasonably available to the public consistent with sound and reasonable business practice and judgment.

Term and Termination

The JHU license agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last to expire licensed patent in such country or, if no licensed patent issues in such country, then in November 2029. Either we or JHU may terminate the JHU license agreement for the other party’s breach that is not cured within specified time periods or if the other party is subject to certain bankruptcy protections. In addition, we may terminate the JHU license agreement, for any reason, upon 90 days’ prior written notice to JHU.

Table of Contents

Assignment and Exclusive License

In April 2017 we assigned to JHU certain Kala-owned patent applications and our interest in certain patents and patent applications formerly co-owned by JHU and Kala, unifying ownership of the assigned patent rights in JHU’s name. As part of the assignment of these patent rights to JHU, Kala was granted an exclusive, non-royalty bearing, sub-licensable license from JHU under all of the patent rights Kala assigned in this transaction, which will expire upon the expiration of the last to expire licensed patent under the new license. No fees were paid to JHU for this exclusive license.

GrayBug Vision, Inc. and The Johns Hopkins University

A dispute arose between us, JHU, and GrayBug Vision, Inc. (formerly known as GrayBug, LLC and GrayBug, Inc.), or GrayBug, over rights licensed to us and GrayBug under certain patent rights owned by JHU. In October 2014, we, GrayBug, and JHU resolved this matter by entering into a Settlement and License Agreement, which was amended in January 2015, which we refer to as the JHU settlement agreement.

Under the JHU settlement agreement, GrayBug granted us, under specified patent rights that are exclusively licensed to GrayBug by JHU in all fields, an exclusive, worldwide royalty-free sublicense in the field of use of a particle with specified characteristics for delivery of a biologically active material through mucus, mucin, or a mucosal barrier where such delivery does not involve administration via injection to the eye, which we refer to as the Kala sublicense field. In December 2017 and April 2019, GrayBug terminated its exclusive license from JHU as to two patent families among these patent rights. Pursuant to the JHU settlement agreement, these patent rights were to be automatically directly licensed to us under the terms of the JHU license agreement unless we specifically declined to accept such automatic direct license. While we did not accept the automatic direct license to one of the patent families as it does not directly relate to EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any other potential drug candidates, we accepted the automatic direct license to the other patent family and are now responsible for all future patent prosecution costs for these patent rights.

In turn, pursuant to the JHU settlement agreement we granted GrayBug, under specified patent rights that are exclusively licensed to us by JHU in all fields, an exclusive, worldwide royalty-free sublicense in the field of use of a particle with specified characteristics for delivery of a biologically active material to the eye via injection, excluding any particle comprising or consisting of LE, which we refer to as the GrayBug sublicense field.

In addition, JHU granted us, under the terms of the JHU license agreement, an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license under certain additional specified patent rights relating to further aspects of MPP technology in the Kala sublicense field. JHU also granted to GrayBug a similar license under these same patent rights in the GrayBug sublicense field. In January 2017, GrayBug terminated its license under all but one patent family in these additional specified patent rights, and in July 2017, GrayBug terminated its license under the remaining patent family. As a result, for those patent rights terminated by GrayBug, we are now licensed in both the Kala sublicense field and the GrayBug sublicense field. JHU also granted us certain rights to obtain a non-exclusive license to certain additional patent rights and, if we obtain such a license, we would have the exclusive right to negotiate for a specified time period an exclusive license under such patent rights in the Kala sublicense field. Under the JHU settlement agreement, we agreed not to exercise our rights under the JHU patent rights licensed or sublicensed to us to use a particular active ingredient. Each party to the JHU settlement agreement may sublicense the rights granted to it pursuant to the JHU settlement agreement, subject to notice requirements and the requirement that any such sublicense must involve some aspect of collaboration, joint research, development, manufacture, partnership or the like. In any event, sublicenses beyond a specified number of tiers are not permitted without the original licensing party’s written consent.

We, GrayBug and JHU each released the others, and certain persons affiliated with them, from any claims and losses known to the releasing party as of the effective date of the JHU settlement agreement in connection with the dispute that led to the JHU settlement agreement.

Financial Terms

The JHU settlement agreement also amended certain of our financial obligations under the JHU license agreement, which we have reflected in the description above. Neither we nor GrayBug owe the other any royalties, milestone payments or other payments with respect to the sublicenses and other rights granted to each other. In addition,

Table of Contents

JHU agreed that we are not responsible for paying to JHU any sublicense fees or other payments due under our JHU license agreement that may otherwise have arisen as a result of our granting GrayBug the sublicenses under the JHU settlement agreement.

For the specified patent rights directly licensed to us by JHU in the Kala sublicense field under the JHU settlement agreement, we reimbursed JHU for a portion of the patent prosecution and maintenance costs incurred prior to entering the JHU settlement agreement, and we are responsible for all of the ongoing prosecution and maintenance costs of any of these JHU patent rights for which there is no other direct licensee of JHU, such as the JHU patent rights licensed to us in both the Kala sublicense field and the GrayBug sublicense field.

Term and Termination

The JHU settlement agreement will expire upon the expiration of all the patent rights that are the subject of the JHU settlement agreement. We may terminate one or more of the licenses or sublicenses granted to us in the JHU settlement agreement on a country-by-country basis for convenience upon 30 days’ prior written notice to GrayBug. We or GrayBug may terminate one or more the sublicenses granted to the other party under the JHU patent rights if the other party, or its employees, officers, directors, agents or representatives, takes certain steps to oppose, attempt to invalidate or prevent the issuance of any of the patent rights directly licensed to the terminating party by JHU.

Stanford University

As part of our acquisition of Combangio, we acquired Combangio’s exclusively in-licensed patent portfolio from Stanford University. In October 2019, Combangio entered into a license agreement with The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, which was amended in February 2020. Pursuant to the license agreement with Stanford, or the Stanford Agreement, we hold a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license under certain patent rights, or licensed patents, directed to methods to promote eye wound healing, to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell and sell products that are covered by the licensed patents, or licensed products, for use in all fields.

​

Financial Terms

​

In consideration for that license, Combangio paid Stanford an upfront fee of $15,000. Under the Stanford Agreement, we are obligated to pay Stanford annual license maintenance fees in the low-to-mid five figures which are creditable against earned royalties owed to Stanford for the same year, an aggregate of up to $1.075 million for the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, and an aggregate of up to $1.1 million for the achievement of specified sales milestones. Stanford is also entitled to receive tiered royalties from us in a low single digit percentage range of our, our affiliates’ and our sublicensees’ net sales of licensed products that are covered by a valid claim of a licensed patent. Our obligation to pay royalties will continue, on a country-by-country and licensed product-by-licensed product basis, until the last-to-expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering such licensed product in the country of manufacture and sale. Additionally, we are obligated to pay Stanford a low double-digit percentage of certain consideration we receive as a result of granting sublicenses to the licensed patents and, in connection with our acquisition of Combangio, Stanford became eligible to receive a one-time change of control fee of $100,000. Stanford retains the right, on behalf of itself, Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, and all other non-profit research institutions, to practice the licensed patents for any non-profit purpose. In addition, the United States government retains nonexclusive rights under the licensed patents to practice or have practiced the licensed patents by or on behalf of the United States government or on behalf of any foreign government or international organization pursuant to treaty or agreement.

​

Diligence Obligations

​

Under the Stanford Agreement, we are obligated to diligently develop, manufacture and sell licensed product, diligently develop markets for licensed product, and use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve certain funding and development milestones by specified dates.

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Term and Termination

​

Unless earlier terminated, our exclusive license under the Stanford Agreement will continue until the expiration of the licensed patents. We may terminate the Stanford Agreement at any time for any reason by providing at least 30 days’ written notice to Stanford. Stanford may terminate the agreement if we breach certain provisions of the agreement and fail to remedy such breach within 60 days after written notice of such breach by Stanford.

​

Government Regulation and Product Approvals

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, pricing, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of biopharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Government Regulation of Drugs and Biological Products

In the United States, the FDA approves and regulates human drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA. Biological products, or biologics, are licensed for marketing under the Public Health Service Act, or the PHSA, and regulated under the FDCA. The failure of an applicant to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may result in FDA delays or refusal to approve pending NDAs or BLAs, and may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions, such as issuance of warning letters, or the imposition of fines, civil penalties, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions and/or civil or criminal prosecution brought by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice or other governmental entities. The FDA must approve our product candidates for therapeutic indications before they may be marketed in the United States. For drug products, the FDA must approve an NDA. For biologic products, the FDA must approve a BLA. An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug or biologic in the United States must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

Table of Contents

Preclinical Studies

Before an applicant begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an 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 determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. 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.

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

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.

Table of Contents

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 committee, or DSMB. This group provides recommendations as to 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. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

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, and both NIH and the FDA have recently signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing those requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.

Specifically, the PHSA grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to issue a notice of noncompliance to a responsible party for failure to submit clinical trial information as required. The responsible party, however, is allowed 30 days to correct the noncompliance and submit the required information. The failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is also a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. In addition to civil monetary penalties, violations may also result in other regulatory action, such as injunction and/or criminal prosecution or disqualification from federal grants. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS’s, long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, those regulations have now been issued and the FDA did issue its first Notice of Noncompliance to a manufacturer in April 2021.

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. Sponsors are required, however, to make their expanded access policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

Table of Contents

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 I 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 Trials in Support of an NDA or BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator 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 clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval.

Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or in patients. During Phase 1 clinical trials, information about the investigational drug product’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are well controlled, closely monitored and conducted in a limited patient population.

Phase 3 clinical trials proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 clinical trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a drug or biologic: such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.”

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 are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group and to further document a clinical benefit in the case of products approved under accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, FDA issued guidance on March 18, 2020, and has updated it periodically since that time to address the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic. The guidance sets out a number of considerations for sponsors of clinical trials impacted by the pandemic, including the requirement to include in the clinical study report (or as a separate document) contingency measures implemented to manage the study, and any disruption of the study as a result of COVID-19; a list of all study participants affected by COVID-19-related study disruptions by a unique subject identifier and by investigational site, and a description of how the individual’s participation was altered; and analyses and corresponding discussions that address the impact of implemented contingency measures (e.g., participant discontinuation from investigational product and/or study, alternative procedures used to collect critical safety and/or efficacy data) on the safety and efficacy results reported for the study, among other

Table of Contents

things. The FDA has indicated that it will continue to provide any necessary guidance to sponsors, clinical investigators, and research institutions as the public health emergency evolves.

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; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or completed 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 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 three 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.

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, 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. Nonetheless, 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.

Manufacturing and Other Regulatory Requirements

Concurrent 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 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

Table of Contents

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.

Pediatric Studies

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an application or supplement thereto 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. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

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

Expedited Review Programs

The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a product candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval.

Table of Contents

​

None of these expedited programs change the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

​

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 fiscal year 2022 this application fee is approximately $3.1 million), and the sponsor of an approved application is also subject to an annual program fee, currently more than $369,000 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 applicant is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 calendar 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 applicant. 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

Table of Contents

the case of a clarification provided by the applicant 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 goal date.

In connection with its review of an application, the FDA will typically submit information requests to the applicant 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. 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. To ensure cGMP and GCP compliance by its employees and third-party contractors, an applicant 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 recommendations 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 applicant during the review process.

The FDA also may require submission of a 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 an applicant 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. It 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

Table of Contents

either a Complete Response Letter, or 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 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 applicant 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 applicant 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.

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.

Post-Approval Regulation

If regulatory approval for marketing of a new product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA may have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report, among other things, certain adverse reactions and manufacturing problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

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

Table of Contents

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

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a product’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the product is approved. After approval, a product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the FDA will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic.

In the United States, health care professionals are generally permitted to prescribe products for such uses not described in the labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Generic Drugs and Regulatory Exclusivity

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, 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, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the FDA. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug, or RLD.

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, 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 applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the

Table of Contents

applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as 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, an applicant 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 applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval of a new product, each of the patents listed in the application for the product 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 applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book. Specifically, the ANDA applicant 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 applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

If the generic drug or follow-on drug applicant 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 applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant 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 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 applicant.

​

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. To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars and the first interchangeable biosimilar product was approved on July 30, 2021 and a second product previously approved as a biosimilar was designated as interchangeable in October 2021. The FDA has also issued numerous guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and licensing biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars under the PHSA, including a draft guidance issued in November 2020 that seeks to provide additional clarity to manufacturers of interchangeable biosimilars.

​

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

Table of Contents

proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. The biosimilar applicant 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 applicant 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 FDA 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.

​

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 another 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 provisions of the FDCA. 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 applicant 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 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. 

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for treatment of rare diseases or conditions. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the product for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits and potentially market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product becomes an orphan when it receives orphan drug designation from the Office of Orphan Products Development at the FDA based on

Table of Contents

acceptable confidential requests. The product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product.

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first approved product. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same disease or condition for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

The period of market exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the disease or condition for which the product has been designated. Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand or the subsequent product is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care. This is the case despite an earlier court opinion holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously required the FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Under Omnibus legislation passed in December 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drug products that received orphan drug designation before enactment of amendments to the FDCA in 2017 but have not yet been approved by FDA.

In September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of market exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” It is unclear how this court decision will be implemented by the FDA.

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 is begun 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 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Companion Diagnostics

In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel drugs and biologics, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling.

Table of Contents

Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the therapeutic product and in vitro companion diagnostic device on issues related to co-development of the products.

The 2014 guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a biologic product candidate generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a product are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND application alone, or both an IND and IDE application.

In April 2020, the FDA issued additional guidance which describes considerations for the development and labeling of companion diagnostic devices to support the indicated uses of multiple drug or biological oncology products, when appropriate. This guidance builds upon existing policy regarding the labeling of companion diagnostics. In its 2014 guidance, the FDA stated that if evidence is sufficient to conclude that the companion diagnostic is appropriate for use with a specific group of therapeutic products, the companion diagnostic’s intended use/indications for use should name the specific group of therapeutic products, rather than specific products. The 2020 guidance expands on the policy statement in the 2014 guidance by recommending that companion diagnostic developers consider a number of factors when determining whether their test could be developed, or the labeling for approved companion diagnostics could be revised through a supplement, to support a broader labeling claim such as use with a specific group of oncology therapeutic products (rather than listing an individual therapeutic product(s)). Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require pre-notification marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.

The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval, or PMA, simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. For federal fiscal year 2021, the standard fee is $374,858 and the small business fee is $93,714.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Health care providers 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, anti-kickback, false claims laws, patient privacy laws and regulations and other health care laws and regulations that may constrain business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state health care laws and regulations, include the following:

Table of Contents

Further, 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 manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. Additionally, some state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives in the jurisdiction. 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 ACA, 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 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

Table of Contents

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 through the end of March 2022. From April 2022 through June 2022 a 1% sequester cut will be in effect, with the full 2% cut resuming thereafter.

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 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 ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. 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 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 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 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 under the ACA; 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, the 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 implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed by the Biden administration until January 1, 2023.

Table of Contents

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Order directs 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: (1) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (2) 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 (3) 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.

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.

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, 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 (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. Additionally, effective starting on January 1, 2023, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, will significantly modify the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. The CPRA also creates a new state agency that will be vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. The CCPA and CPRA could impact our business activities depending on how it is interpreted and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business

Table of Contents

to not only cyber threats but also the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and individually identifiable health information. These provisions may apply to some of our business activities. In addition, other states, including Virginia and Colorado, already have passed state privacy laws and other states will likely be considering similar laws in the near future.

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 products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union, or EU, generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU.

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.

The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the EU at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.

Table of Contents

PRIME Designation in the EU

In March 2016, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated Agency contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) or Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) are appointed early in PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level.

Pediatric Studies

Companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, with the EMA’s pediatric committee, or PDCO, and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date.

Marketing Authorization

Marketing authorization applications, or MAAs, can be filed either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures, albeit through the Mutual Recognition or Decentralized procedure for a product to be authorized in more than one EU member state.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the EMA that is valid in all EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which are part of the EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicines (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.

There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several EU countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

Table of Contents

Under the above-described procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Conditional Approval

In particular circumstances, E.U. 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 applicants 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 disease; (2) the product candidate is intended to meet unmet medical needs of the 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 applicant 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.

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 EU 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 EU 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 EU n market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU 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 EU 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:

Table of Contents

Regulatory Data Protection in the EU

In the EU, 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 applicants 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 EU 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 an applicant obtains a marketing authorization in all EU 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.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a drug can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EU when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the EU and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the EU would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Once authorized, orphan medicinal products are entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity in all EU Member States and in addition a range of other benefits during the development and regulatory review process including scientific assistance for study protocols, authorization through the centralized marketing authorization procedure covering all member countries and a reduction or elimination of registration and marketing authorization fees. However, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10-year period with the consent of the marketing authorization holder for the original orphan medicinal product or if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities. Marketing authorization may also be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if this product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. The period of market exclusivity may,

Table of Contents

in addition, be reduced to six years if it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Patent Term Extensions

The European Union also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates, or 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 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 EU, 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 U.S. and the EU, 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 EU, 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.

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 Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the 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 U.K. from the EU, the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the U.K. and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR.

​

Table of Contents

Human Capital

Our ability to sustain and grow our business requires us to hire, retain and develop a highly skilled workforce. As of December 31, 2021, we had a total of 192 full time employees. We continually evaluate our business needs and opportunities and balance in-house expertise and capacity with outsourced expertise and capacity.

Recruiting, motivating and retaining qualified employees is critical to our success. We monitor our compensation programs and aim to provide our employees a competitive mix of cash compensation and medical insurance benefits, as well as the opportunity to participate in our equity programs. We believe that our philosophy of providing competitive compensation, along with opportunities for career growth and development, encourages a high level of corporate employee tenure and low level of voluntary turnover. A large majority of our non-field based employees have obtained advanced degrees in their professions. Our employees are supported with training and development opportunities to pursue their careers and to ensure compliance with our policies. 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. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the communities in which we operate, and which comply with government regulations. This includes allowing our corporate employees to work remotely.

Our Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in July 2009. Our website address is www.kalarx.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website address is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive technical reference only.

Available Information

Through our website, we make available free of charge our Annual Reports 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, 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 Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. 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. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investors,” as a source of information about us.

The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our website address is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as an inactive technical reference only.

Table of Contents

Item 1A      Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and the related notes appearing at the end of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before deciding to invest in our common stock. These risks, some of which have occurred and any of which may occur in the future, can have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. In such event, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you might lose all or part of your investment. 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, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Recent Acquisition of Combangio

We may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of our acquisition of Combangio, those benefits may take longer to realize than expected, and we may encounter significant integration difficulties.

On November 15, 2021, we completed our acquisition, or the Acquisition, of Combangio, Inc., or Combangio, a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing regenerative biotherapeutics based on mesenchymal stem cell secretomes, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, dated November 15, 2021. Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the Acquisition will depend, to a large extent, on our ability to integrate Combangio and KPI-012 (previously known as CMB-012), a product candidate in clinical development for the treatment of persistent corneal epithelial defects, or PCED, into our business and business strategy and realize anticipated growth opportunities and synergies. We expect that the integration process will be complex, costly and time-consuming. As a result, we are devoting, and will be required to continue to devote, significant management attention and resources to integrating Combangio into our business and KPI-012 into our business strategy. The integration process may be disruptive to our business and the expected benefits may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all. The failure to meet the challenges involved and to realize the anticipated benefits of the Acquisition could cause an interruption of, or a loss of momentum in, our commercialization efforts for EYSUVIS and INVELTYS and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the Acquisition is expected to entail numerous additional material potential difficulties, risks and uncertainties, including, among others:

Table of Contents

Many of these factors are outside of our control, and any one of them could result in increased costs, decreased expected revenues and further diversion of management time and energy, which could materially adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Also, we now possess certain liabilities and obligations, including contractual liabilities and obligations, that were assumed by us upon closing of the Acquisition. Further, it is possible that undisclosed, contingent, or other liabilities, problems or obligations may arise in the future of which we were previously unaware. These disclosed and undisclosed liabilities could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, we expect to incur expenses related to the continued development, regulatory approval process and commercialization with respect to KPI-012. As a company, we have no prior experience developing biological product candidates. Because we have limited financial resources, by investing in the Acquisition and focusing on the development of KPI-012, we may forgo or delay pursuit of other opportunities that may have proven to have greater commercial potential.

Any or all of these factors could decrease or delay the expected accretive effect of the Acquisition and negatively impact our stock price. As a result, it cannot be assured that we will be successful in the integration of Combangio with our business or that we will realize the benefits anticipated from the Acquisition or in the anticipated time frames or at all.

Our existing stockholders will experience dilution upon any future issuance of shares of our common stock to former equityholders of Combangio pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.

In connection with the Acquisition, on January 3, 2022 we issued an aggregate of 6,815,072 shares of our common stock to the former Combangio equityholders. Such shares, together with 973,565 shares of our common stock that are held back by us, or the Holdback Shares, and will be issuable subject to the terms of the Merger Agreement to the Combangio equityholders on the escrow release date, constituted approximately 11.9% of our common stock as of immediately prior to the closing of the Acquisition. In addition, former Combangio equityholders are entitled to receive from us, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, contingent consideration of up to $5.4 million payable in shares of our common stock upon our achievement of various development and regulatory milestones, and, we may elect, subject to the Nasdaq rules, to satisfy a portion of certain milestone payments that are payable to Combangio equityholders in cash through the issuance of up to $15 million of our common stock. Our existing stockholders will experience dilution upon any future issuance of shares of our common stock to former Combangio equityholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement.

​

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need For Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses from operations and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. We expect to incur additional losses and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant losses from operations and negative cash flows from operations. Our net losses were $142.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and $104.3 million for the year ended

Table of Contents

December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $542.4 million. In January 2019, we launched our first product, INVELTYS (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension) 1% for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. On October 26, 2020, the FDA approved our second product, 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. We began shipping EYSUVIS to wholesalers in the United States in late December 2020 and commenced a full promotional launch in early January 2021. We have had limited revenues to date from product sales. We have financed our operations primarily through proceeds from our initial public offering, or IPO, follow-on public offerings of common stock and sales under our at-the-market offering facility, or the ATM Offering, private placements of preferred stock, borrowings under credit facilities and the Loan and Security Agreement with Oxford Finance LLC, or the Loan Agreement, convertible promissory notes and warrants. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials, and engaging in activities to launch and commercialize EYSUVIS and INVELTYS. As of result of the acquisition of Combangio, we expect to devote substantial financial resources to the research and development and potential commercialization of KPI-012. Although we expect to continue to generate revenue from sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS, there can be no assurance as to the amount or timing of any such revenue, and we expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for at least the next several years, including in connection with our continued development, regulatory approval efforts and commercialization, if any, of KPI-012. We may never achieve or maintain profitability. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year.

We anticipate that our research and development expenses will increase substantially in the future as compared to prior periods as we advance the clinical development of KPI-012. Our research and development expenses will also increase substantially in the future as we advance our preclinical development programs, including KPI-287, our Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor product candidate, and our novel selective glucocorticoid receptor modulators, or SEGRM, program and conduct any necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials and other development activities for our product candidates. We continue to commercialize EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in the United States and expect that our selling, general and administrative expenses will increase substantially when we pursue the commercialization of KPI-012, if approved, and support commercialization of any other product candidate.

Our expenses will also increase 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 expenses will increase from what we anticipate if:

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate revenue. While we began to generate revenue from the sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in late December 2020 and January 2019, respectively, there can be no assurance as to the amount or timing of any future revenue from these products, and we may not achieve profitability. Our lead product candidate, KPI-012, is in the early stages of clinical development and all of our other research and development programs are in preclinical development and, accordingly, we do not expect to generate revenue from KPI-012 or any other product candidate for several years, if at all. Achieving and maintaining profitability will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including:

Table of Contents

EYSUVIS and INVELTYS are our only products that have been approved for sale, and they have only been approved in the United States. We plan to seek approval in other jurisdictions, but may not do so successfully, or at all. Further, the successful commercialization of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in the United States is subject to many risks. As a company, we have limited experience commercializing products, and we may not be able to do so successfully. There are numerous examples of unsuccessful product launches and failures to meet expectations of market potential, including by pharmaceutical companies with more experience and resources than us. Our revenue from sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS alone may not be sufficient for us to become profitable in the near future, if at all. Moreover, KPI-012 is in the early stages of clinical development and all of our other research and development programs are in preclinical development and, accordingly, we do not expect to generate revenue from KPI-012 or any other product candidate for several years, if at all.

In addition, our commercialization efforts have previously been hampered by the operational restrictions on our sales force from quarantines, travel restrictions and bans and other governmental restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of these restrictions, we previously suspended our sales force from substantially all in-person interactions with physicians and were limited to conducting educational and promotional activities virtually. Commencing in the fourth quarter of 2020, our sales force resumed substantially all in-person interactions in the field, but to the extent we restrict, or are restricted from, in-person interactions with physicians, we may be limited to conducting educational and promotional activities virtually, which may continue to hamper our ability to market EYSUVIS and INVELTYS. In addition, government restrictions have at times led to moratoria on elective ocular surgeries in many jurisdictions, which had significantly reduced, and may in the future continue to significantly reduce, the demand for INVELTYS, which is indicated for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has generally had an adverse impact on the launch of pharmaceutical products, and we believe the pandemic has impacted, and may continue to impact, the launch of EYSUVIS. We also do not know the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will impact our development of KPI-012 or any other product candidates that we may develop. The extent of the impact of COVID-19 on our development and commercialization efforts will depend on the length and severity of this pandemic, including the extent there is any resurgence of the COVID-19 virus or any variant strains of the virus, the availability and effectiveness of vaccines, and the impact of the foregoing on our customers, employees, vendors and government agencies, which is uncertain and cannot be predicted.

We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenue that is sufficient to achieve profitability. 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 decrease the value of our company 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 you to lose all or part of your investment.

Our limited operating history as a commercial company and in developing biologics may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We are an early-stage commercial company. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring rights to intellectual property, business planning, raising capital, developing EYSUVIS and INVELTYS and conducting other research and development activities, and commercially launching EYSUVIS and INVELTYS. We are in the process of transitioning from a company solely with a research and development focus to a company engaging in commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition. We only launched

Table of Contents

INVELTYS in January 2019 and are still in the process of executing our commercial launch plan for EYSUVIS, have no prior history of commercializing products, and, to date, have generated limited revenue from the sale of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS. In addition, our commercial operations and INVELTYS sales have been and continue to be negatively impacted by COVID-19 and its collateral consequences. The effects of COVID-19 may also disrupt the commercialization of EYSUVIS.

Moreover, we plan to develop KPI-012 for the treatment of PCED and any other indications we determine to pursue. As a company, we have no prior experience developing biological product candidates. We may also encounter delays or difficulties in our efforts to, or fail to, successfully integrate the operations of Combangio into our business and KPI-012 into our business strategy. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had prior experience developing biological product candidates, integrating acquired businesses into our existing business or a longer operating and commercialization history.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

We may need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

We expect to devote substantial financial resources to our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we commercialize EYSUVIS and INVELTYS and integrate the operations of Combangio into our business. We also expect to incur significant additional expenses if and as we conduct further research and development activities, and initiate clinical trials of, and seek regulatory approval for, KPI-012 and any other product candidate that we identify and advance, including KPI-287, and from our SEGRM program.

Our expenses have increased relative to prior periods in connection with our launch and commercialization of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS, including costs associated with the addition and subsequent expansion of our specialty sales force and increased marketing, distribution and manufacturing capabilities. Accordingly, we may need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing 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 any current or future commercialization efforts.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Table of Contents

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses. Net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year. We expect that our cash and cash equivalents of $92.1 million as of December 31, 2021, along with anticipated revenue from EYSUVIS and INVELTYS, will enable us to fund our operations, lease and debt service obligations, and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2023. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us. As a result, we could deplete our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Commercializing products is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process. Although we commercially launched INVELTYS in early 2019, began shipping EYSUVIS to wholesalers in the United States in late December 2020 and commenced a full promotional launch of EYSUVIS in early January 2021, our revenue from product sales of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS may not be sufficient for us to become profitable in the near future, if at all. In addition, identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Completion dates and completion costs can vary significantly for each product candidate and are difficult to predict. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales from KPI-012 or any other product candidate. Also, even if we successfully develop KPI-012 or any other product candidate and one or more of those are approved, we may not achieve commercial success with them. Accordingly, we will need to rely on the commercial success of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS to generate product revenue for the foreseeable future.

We may require additional financing to achieve our business objectives. In addition, we may opportunistically raise additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate preclinical studies, clinical trials or other development activities for one or more of our product candidates or delay, limit, reduce or terminate our establishment of sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to commercialize EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we obtain approval.

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements, royalty agreements, and marketing and distribution arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include pledging of assets as collateral, 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 our Loan Agreement may limit our ability to obtain additional debt financing. Under the Loan Agreement, we are also restricted from paying dividends on our common stock, granting liens, making investments, making acquisitions, making certain restricted payments, selling assets and making certain other uses of our cash without the lenders’ consent, subject in each case to certain exceptions.

Table of Contents

In connection with the Acquisition, on January 3, 2022 we issued an aggregate of 6,815,072 shares of our common stock to the former Combangio equityholders. Such shares, together with 973,565 Holdback Shares that will be issuable subject to the terms of the Merger Agreement to the Combangio equityholders on the escrow release date, constituted approximately 11.9% of our common stock as of immediately prior to the closing of the Acquisition. . In addition, former Combangio equityholders are entitled to receive from us, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, contingent consideration of up to $5.4 million payable in shares of our common stock upon our achievement of various development and regulatory milestones, and we may elect, subject to the Nasdaq rules, to satisfy a portion of certain milestone payments that are payable to Combangio equityholders in cash through the issuance of up to $15 million of our common stock. Our existing stockholders will experience dilution upon any future issuance of shares of our common stock to former Combangio equityholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement. In addition, 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 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 when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or current 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.

We have a substantial amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2021, we had $80.0 million of outstanding borrowings under the tranche A term loan under the Loan Agreement, bearing interest at a floating rate equal to the greater of 30-day LIBOR and 0.11%, plus 7.89%. The Loan Agreement provides for interest-only payments until December 1, 2024 if neither the tranche B term loan nor the tranche C term loan are made, and until June 1, 2025 if either the tranche B term loan or the tranche C term loan is made, or the Amortization Date. Beginning on the Amortization Date, we are required to repay the outstanding principal in monthly installments over a period of (i) 18 months if neither the tranche B term loan nor the tranche C term loan is made or (ii) 12 months if either the tranche B term loan or the tranche C term loan is made. All unpaid principal and interest is due in full on May 1, 2026, the date of maturity.

Our obligations under the Loan Agreement are secured by substantially all of our assets. We could in the future incur additional indebtedness beyond our borrowings under our Loan Agreement.

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

We may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to pay the amounts due under our existing debt and funds from external sources may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, a failure to comply with the covenants under our Loan Agreement could result in an event of default and acceleration of amounts due. If an event of default occurs and the lender accelerates the amounts due under our Loan Agreement, we may not be able to make accelerated payments, and the lender could seek to enforce security interests in the collateral securing such indebtedness.

​

Table of Contents

Fluctuations in interest rates could materially affect the interest expense on our Loan Agreement.

Because our debt under the Loan Agreement bears interest at floating interest rates, increases in interest rates could materially increase our interest expense. Further, our Loan Agreement uses LIBOR as a reference rate. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, or the FCA, which regulates LIBOR, announced that all LIBOR settings will either cease to be provided by any administrator or no longer be representative: (1) immediately after December 31, 2021, in the case of the one week and two month LIBOR tenors; and (2) immediately after June 30, 2023, in the case of the remaining LIBOR tenors. The United States Federal Reserve has advised that no new contracts using U.S. dollar LIBOR should be entered into after December 31, 2021. In June 2017, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee selected the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or SOFR, a new index calculated by reference to short-term repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities, as its preferred replacement for U.S. dollar LIBOR. Whether SOFR or any other alternative reference rates attains market acceptance as a LIBOR replacement tool remains is uncertain. As such, the future of LIBOR and the potential alternatives at this time is uncertain.

​

When LIBOR is no longer available or if lenders have increased costs due to the phase-out of LIBOR or changes in law, we may suffer from potential increases in interest rate costs on our floating debt rate. It is not possible to predict the effect these developments may have on our Loan Agreement. Further, we may need to renegotiate our Loan Agreement and the floating loans thereunder to replace the interest rate calculated by reference to LIBOR with an interest rate calculated by reference to a new standard that is established.

​

If our estimates or judgments relating to our critical accounting policies, or any of our projections, prove to be inaccurate or financial reporting standards or interpretations change, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. The preparation of our financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of our assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. Such estimates and judgments include revenue recognition, inventory, the present value of lease liabilities and the corresponding right-of-use assets, the fair value of warrants, contingent consideration and acquired in-process research and development, stock-based compensation, accrued expenses and the recoverability of our net deferred tax assets and related valuation allowance. We base our estimates and judgments on historical experience, expected future experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. In addition, from time to time, we may rely on projections regarding our expected future performance that represent our management’s then-current estimates. However, any of these estimates, judgments or projections, or the assumptions underlying them, may change over time or may otherwise prove to be inaccurate. Our results of operations may be adversely affected if our estimates, assumptions or projections change or if actual circumstances differ from those in our estimates or assumptions, which could cause our results of operations to fall below the expectations of securities analysts and investors, resulting in a decline in the trading price of our common stock.

For example, we rely on third-party data providers to collect and report estimates of prescription information and pipeline inventory levels as components of our estimations for revenue recognition. There is a limited amount of information available to such data providers to determine the actual number of total prescriptions for prescription products during such periods. Their estimates are based on a combination of data received from pharmacies and other distributors, and historical data when actual data is unavailable. Their calculations of changes in prescription levels between periods can be significantly affected by lags in data reporting from various sources or by changes in pharmacies and other distributors providing data. Such methods can from time to time result in significant inaccuracies in information when ultimately compared with actual results. Further, data for a single and limited period may not be representative of a trend or otherwise predictive of future results.

Additionally, we regularly monitor our compliance with applicable financial reporting standards and review new pronouncements and drafts thereof that are relevant to us. As a result of new standards, changes to existing standards and changes in their interpretation, we might be required to change our accounting policies, alter our operational policies and implement new or enhance existing systems so that they reflect new or amended financial reporting standards, or we may be required to restate our published financial statements. Such changes to existing standards or changes in their interpretation may have an adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial position, and profit.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Commercialization of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and our Product Candidates

The ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic and the efforts to prevent its spread have adversely impacted our operations and the market for INVELTYS, is believed to have impacted the commercialization of EYSUVIS and could impact the development of KPI-012 or any other product candidate we develop and may continue to adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and government measures taken in response to it, including from time to time quarantines, strict travel restrictions and bans, heightened border scrutiny and other measures, have had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce; supply chains have been disrupted; facilities and production have been suspended; and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services has fallen significantly.

In particular, from time-to-time moratoria have been put in place on routine medical appointments and elective surgeries in many jurisdictions, including ocular surgeries, which have adversely affected, and may adversely affect in the future, the market for INVELTYS, which is indicated for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery, resulting in a significant reduction in the demand for INVELTYS. The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted revenues from INVELTYS and we expect it to continue to do so until surgeries return to and remain at historical levels. In light of shelter-in-place orders and other mandated local travel and social interaction prohibitions, we previously suspended substantially all in-person interactions with physicians and were limited to conducting educational and promotional activities virtually. Commencing in the fourth quarter of 2020, our sales force resumed substantially all in-person interactions in the field, but to the extent we restrict, or are restricted from, in-person interactions with physicians, we may be limited to conducting educational and promotional activities virtually, which may continue to hamper our ability to market EYSUVIS and INVELTYS. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has generally had an adverse impact on the launch of pharmaceutical products, and we believe the pandemic has impacted, and may continue to impact, the launch of EYSUVIS.

​

We and any of our contract manufacturing organizations and contract research organizations may face disruptions that may affect our ability to initiate and complete preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, including disruptions in procuring supplies that are essential for our research and development activities, manufacturing disruptions, disruptions in our ability to obtain necessary trial site approvals, as well as delays in or difficulties with enrollment and other delays at clinical trial sites. We may face impediments to regulatory meetings and clearance and approvals due to measures intended to limit in-person interactions. We do not know the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will impact our development of KPI-012 or any other product candidates that we develop. We plan to submit an IND application to the FDA for KPI-012 and, subject to regulatory clearance, commence a Phase 2/3 clinical trial of KPI-012 for PCED in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic may delay our planned IND submission and/or the initiation and conduct of our planned clinical trial.

Additionally, while we currently are not experiencing interruptions in our manufacturing of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or KPI-012, any reinstatement of quarantines, travel restrictions and other measures may significantly impact the ability of employees of our third-party suppliers to get to their places of work to manufacture and deliver future supplies if and when needed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has already caused significant disruptions in the financial markets, and may again cause such disruptions, which could impact our ability to raise additional funds through public offerings and may also impact the volatility of our stock price and trading in our stock. Moreover, the significant ongoing impact of the pandemic on economies worldwide could result in more extensive adverse effects on our business and operations. The full extent of the impact of COVID-19 on our development and commercialization efforts will depend on the length and severity of this pandemic, the timing and extent of any resurgence of the COVID-19 virus or any variant strains of the virus, the availability and effectiveness of vaccines, and the impact of the foregoing on our customers, employees, vendors and government agencies, which is uncertain and cannot be predicted. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be on our business and it has the potential to significantly and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Table of Contents

​

EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate that receives marketing approval may fail to achieve market acceptance by clinicians and patients, or adequate formulary coverage, pricing or reimbursement by third-party payors and others in the medical community, and the market opportunity for these products may be smaller than we estimate.

EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate that we develop that receives marketing approval may fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by clinicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. While there are no drugs other than EYSUVIS currently approved in the United States for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, current treatments that are used in the United States for dry eye disease include over-the-counter artificial tears, Restasis^®, Xiidra^®, Cequa^TM, Tyrvaya^TM, off-label use of branded or generic corticosteroids and various drugs that are produced by compounding pharmacies. Generic versions of Restasis have been available in the United States since February 2022. Our current expectations regarding market potential for EYSUVIS are based, in part, on market research data we have commissioned, which indicated that interest in prescribing EYSUVIS is high among surveyed eye care professionals, or ECPs. However, it is possible that ECPs may continue to rely on other existing treatments rather than EYSUVIS. In addition, generic versions of any products that compete with any of our products or product candidates would likely be offered at a substantially lower price than we offer our products and expect to offer for our product candidates, if approved. As a result, clinicians, patients and third-party payors may choose to rely on such products rather than our products or product candidates.

Common treatments in the United States for inflammation and pain following ocular surgery include corticosteroids. Our current estimates of potential future revenue from sales of INVELTYS are based, in part, on current market research data. However, doctors may continue to rely on ocular steroids other than INVELTYS and other treatments rather than INVELTYS. In addition, there are also non-topical formulations of ocular steroids that are available to patients. It is also possible that other therapeutics will be approved for treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery with twice a day or less frequent dosing.

​

In addition, we are developing KPI-012 for PCED, which is a rare disease. Our understanding of both the number of people who have a PCED, as well as the subset of people with PCED diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with KPI-012, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect. The number of patients with PCED may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with KPI-012 or may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The market opportunity for EYSUVIS and INVELTYS may be further impacted by extraordinary events such as the current pandemic health event resulting from COVID-19 and its collateral consequences. For example, from time to time moratoria have been put in place on routine medical appointments and elective surgeries in many jurisdictions, including ocular surgeries such as cataract and refractive, which have adversely affected, and may adversely affect in the future, the market for INVELTYS, which is indicated for the treatment of post-operative inflammation and pain following ocular surgery, resulting in a significant reduction in the demand for INVELTYS. In light of shelter-in-place orders and other mandated local travel prohibitions, we previously suspended substantially all in-person interactions with physicians and were limited to conducting educational and promotional activities virtually. Commencing in the fourth quarter of 2020, our sales force resumed substantially all in-person interactions in the field, but to the extent we restrict, or are restricted from, in-person interactions with physicians, we may be limited to conducting educational and promotional activities virtually, which may continue to hamper our ability to market EYSUVIS and INVELTYS.

Our assessment of the potential market opportunity for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and our other product candidates is based on industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties, some of which we commissioned. 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. The potential market opportunity for the treatment of dry eye disease and PCED in particular is difficult to precisely estimate. The results from our physician and patient surveys may be less reflective of the dry eye disease population as a whole than a survey conducted with a larger sample size. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for our product candidates, such as KPI-012, include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications,

Table of Contents

third-party research and other surveys, which may be based on a small sample size and fail to accurately reflect market opportunities. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions. If any of our assumptions or estimates, or these publications, research, surveys or studies prove to be inaccurate, then the actual market for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any of our other product candidates may be smaller than we expect, and as a result our product revenue may be limited and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability. The uncertainty with respect to the future progression of the COVID-19 pandemic and its long-term effects may adversely impact the accuracy of such estimates and our potential market opportunity for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and any other product candidates we develop.

If EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval do not achieve adequate levels of acceptance by physicians and patients, formulary coverage, pricing or reimbursement, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Even if we are able to successfully commercialize EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate that we may develop, the products 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 successfully commercialize EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate 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 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 EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate that we commercialize and, even if they are available, the level of reimbursement may be limited or not satisfactory.

Table of Contents

Inadequate reimbursement may adversely affect the demand for, or the price of, EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other 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 EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, such as EYSUVIS, 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 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 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 candidate to other available therapies. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

There can be no assurance that EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or our other product candidates, even if such product candidates are approved for sale in the United States or in other countries, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective by third-party payors, or that coverage and an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or our other product candidates profitably.

If we are unable to maintain our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, establish additional capabilities if and when necessary, or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate that we may develop if and when they are approved.

We established our sales and marketing infrastructure for the commercial launch of INVELTYS, our first product, and EYSUVIS, and, as a company, we have limited experience in the sales, marketing and distribution of therapeutic products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we obtained marketing approval, we may need to establish additional sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, either ourselves or through collaborations or other arrangements with third parties.

In 2019, we completed the initial buildout of our specialty sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure in the United States to commercialize INVELTYS. During late 2020 and 2021, we expanded our commercial organization,

Table of Contents

which now includes approximately 100 field-based commercial sales personnel. Our sales representatives promote both EYSUVIS and INVELTYS.

There are risks involved with establishing, maintaining and expanding, if and when necessary, our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming, may divert our management and business development resources and could delay any future product launch. Maintaining our sales force requires us to continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, which we may not do effectively. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations. Further, we may overestimate or underestimate the size of the sales force required for a successful product launch, including with respect to the ongoing launch of EYSUVIS. In addition, we have not yet established our own commercial organization or distribution capabilities specific to KPI-012. While we believe that we will be able to commercialize KPI-012, if approved, for the treatment of PCED with a small, targeted, internal sales force in the United States and potentially other major markets, our assumptions may prove inaccurate. In the future, we may need to expand our sales force and at a higher cost than previously anticipated. If the commercial launch of KPI-012, if approved, any other product candidate for which we establish additional commercial infrastructure 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.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we receive marketing approval on our own include:

While we cannot be certain when, if ever, we will seek and/or receive marketing approval to commercialize any of our product candidates outside the United States, we may seek marketing approval and explore commercialization of EYSUVIS and KPI-012 in certain markets outside the United States utilizing a variety of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties. Our product revenues and our profitability, if any, under any such third-party collaboration, distribution or other marketing arrangements are likely to be lower than if we were to market, sell and distribute EYSUVIS and KPI-012 ourselves. We may also consider seeking marketing approval outside the United States for other product candidates in the future. If we decide to seek regulatory approval for any of our product candidates outside the United States, we may need to seek additional patent approvals, seek licenses to patents held by third parties and/or face claims of infringing third-party patent rights.

In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate or we may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market effectively EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If we do not maintain our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, or do not establish additional capabilities if and when needed successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

Table of Contents

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do. Our competitors include major pharmaceutical companies with significantly greater financial resources. EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and our product candidates will also compete with existing branded, generic and off-label products.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and any other product candidate 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. Many of these existing products have achieved widespread acceptance among clinicians, patients and payors. In addition, many of these products are available on a generic basis, and our products or our product candidates may not demonstrate sufficient additional clinical benefits to clinicians, patients or payors to justify a higher price compared to generic products. In many cases, insurers or other third-party payors, particularly Medicare, seek to encourage the use of generic products.

The current disease management approaches for dry eye disease in the United States includes non-pharmaceutical therapies and pharmaceutical therapies. Non-pharmaceutical therapies include over the counter artificial tear eye drops, which are palliative and used on an intermittent or chronic basis to provide short-term symptomatic relief of dryness and irritation; hot compresses for the eye and lid hygiene management; and devices, such as punctal plugs that are inserted into the tear ducts to inhibit tear drainage, resulting in more moisture on the surface of the eye.

Pharmaceutical therapies for dry eye disease include on label prescription drugs, including Restasis, Xiidra, Tyrvaya and Cequa, which are the only prescription pharmaceutical products other than EYSUVIS that are approved in the United States for use in patients with dry eye disease; and off label prescription drugs, including topical steroid drops and/or other similar products, which are sometimes prescribed for treatment of dry eye disease. Generic versions of Restasis have been available in the United States since February 2022. Restasis and Cequa are both topical cyclosporine formulations that are approved for increasing tear production in patients whose tear production is presumed to be suppressed due to ocular keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Xiidra is a topical anti-inflammatory therapy approved for treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease.

EYSUVIS is indicated for the short-term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, which includes dry eye flares. Any product that is developed for the treatment of the signs and/or symptoms of dry eye disease could directly compete with EYSUVIS, including Tyrvaya, which was commercially launched in November 2021. There are also several product candidates in preclinical and clinical development in the United States for the treatment of dry eye disease. If any of these product candidates is approved and such product candidate either treats the signs and/or symptoms of dry eye disease or reduces the frequency of flares in dry eye patients, it could reduce the overall market opportunity for EYSUVIS. These product candidates are being developed by pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies of various sizes, such as Aldeyra Therapeutics’ reproxalap ophthalmic solution, Novaliq’s CyclAsol and NOV03, which have been licensed to Bausch Health Companies Inc., and others.

Following ocular surgery, topical steroids are commonly prescribed to manage and prevent complications from post-operative inflammation. Topical steroid drops are the main competition to INVELTYS for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. The current branded market leaders for topical steroids in the United States, based on revenue, are Lotemax^® products and Durezol^®. Generic topical steroid formulations consist mainly of products containing prednisolone, fluorometholone or dexamethasone. In addition, the first generic formulations of loteprednol suspension 0.5% (Lotemax suspension) and loteprednol ophthalmic gel 0.5% (Lotemax Gel) were launched in May 2019 and February 2021, respectively, and the first generic version of Durezol was launched in September 2021.

There are also non-topical formulations of ocular steroids that have been approved and/or marketed. Eyepoint Pharmaceutical launched Dexycu^®, an intraocular suspension of dexamethasone for the treatment of post-operative inflammation, in July 2019. Also in July 2019, Ocular Therapeutix launched Dextenza^®, an intracanalicular insert of dexamethasone, for the treatment of ocular pain following ophthalmic surgery. There are also a number of companies in

Table of Contents

the United States developing products and therapies in preclinical research and clinical development for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery. In addition, there are various formulations of steroids that are produced by compounding pharmacies and that are in drop form or are injected into the eye following ocular surgery.

If approved, we expect KPI-012 to compete with Oxervate, which is the only approved prescription pharmaceutical product in the PCED space. Oxervate (cenegermin-bkbj), was approved in August 2018 for the treatment of neurotrophic keratitis, or NK, a degenerative disease characterized by decreased corneal sensitivity and poor corneal healing, which we believe to represent approximately one-third of all PCED cases. Oxervate is a topical eye drop that is administered six times per day at two-hour intervals for eight weeks. Each administration of Oxervate requires the use of a vial containing the drug product, a vial adapter, a single-use pipette and disinfectant wipes. In addition, to our knowledge, there is currently only one product candidate in active clinical development for the treatment of a broad PCED population. ST266, an eye drop, is currently being studied in a Phase 2b clinical trial in patients with PCED and is being developed by Noveome Biotherapeutics Inc. ST266 is a secretome produced from amnion-derived epithelial cells from donated full-term placentas. A number of companies are pursuing development of product candidates for the treatment of NK.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our products. 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.

In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors, particularly Medicare, seeking to encourage the use of generic products. Generic products are currently being used for certain of the indications that we are pursuing, and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or which we may compete against 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 and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Given that EYSUVIS and INVELTYS utilize a known FDA-approved corticosteroid, these products and any similar product candidates, if approved, may face competition from generic and branded versions of existing drugs based on corticosteroids that are administered in a different manner.

Product liability lawsuits against us could divert our resources and could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and any other products that we may 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, including KPI-012. We face an even greater risk as we commercialize EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any other products that we may develop. 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:

Table of Contents

We currently hold $15 million in product liability insurance coverage in the aggregate, with a per incident limit of $15 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage when and if we begin commercialization of KPI-012 or any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. 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.

Risks Related to Product Development

If we are unable to successfully complete the clinical development of, and obtain marketing approval for, KPI-012 or any other product candidate, or experience significant delays in doing so, or if, after obtaining marketing approvals, we fail to commercialize our products and product candidates, our business will be materially harmed.

As a result of the acquisition of Combangio, we expect to devote a significant portion of our research and development resources and business efforts to the development of KPI-012, a clinical-stage product candidate for the treatment of PCED and any other indications we determine to pursue.

The success of KPI-012 and any other product candidates we develop will depend on many factors, including the following:

Table of Contents

If we do 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 KPI-012 or any other product candidate, which would materially harm our business. In addition, KPI-012 is still in the early stages of clinical development, and all of our other development efforts are in the early stages of preclinical development, including KPI-287 and our SEGRMs program. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval of KPI-012 or any other product candidate we develop. Therefore, our ability to generate product revenue will depend heavily on the successful commercialization of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS, as the development and eventual commercialization of KPI-012 or any other product candidate may never occur.

If clinical trials of KPI-012 or any other 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 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.

The risk of failure in developing product candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any product candidate would prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, 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, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. For example, the results of Combangio’s Phase 1b clinical trials of KPI-012 in 12 patients with PCED may not be indicative of future results in later stage clinical trials, including in our planned Phase 2/3 clinical trial. 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 product candidates. Furthermore, the failure of any product candidates to demonstrate safety and efficacy in any clinical trial could negatively impact the perception of our other product candidates and/or cause the FDA or other regulatory authorities to require additional testing before approving any of our product candidates.

In January 2018, we announced that we had completed two Phase 3 clinical trials evaluating EYSUVIS, STRIDE 1 and STRIDE 2, evaluating the safety and efficacy of EYSUVIS versus placebo in patients with dry eye disease. In STRIDE 1, statistical significance was achieved for both primary endpoints. However, in STRIDE 2 we did not achieve statistical significance for the primary symptom endpoint of ocular discomfort severity. In August 2019, we announced that we received a complete response letter from the FDA indicating that positive efficacy data from an additional clinical trial will be needed to support a resubmission of our new drug application, or NDA. On March 9, 2020, we announced that our Phase 3 clinical trial of EYSUVIS, which we refer to as STRIDE 3, met both of its primary symptom endpoints and its key secondary sign endpoint, and on April 30, 2020, we resubmitted our NDA with the positive data from STRIDE 3. On October 26, 2020, we received approval from the FDA to market EYSUVIS in the United States. Our Phase 3 clinical trials of EYSUVIS may not be sufficient to support an application for marketing approval outside the United States. Further, if regulatory authorities outside the United States do not accept the data from any trial we conduct in the United States, in particular if the European Union does not allow us to utilize the results from our Phase 3 clinical trials of EYSUVIS pursuant to the Article 10(3) submission pathway or otherwise, we will likely need to conduct additional trials to obtain marketing approval in such jurisdiction, which would be costly and time-

Table of Contents

consuming and could delay or permanently halt our ability to commercialize the applicable product candidates in the applicable jurisdictions.

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of KPI-012 or any other product candidate we develop beyond those that we currently expect, 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 positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

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, and our competitors could bring products to market before we do.

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 KPI-012 or any other product candidate that we may develop, including:

Table of Contents

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, such as those developing treatments for PCED, 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 patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for KPI-012 or any other product candidate we develop if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States.

Patient enrollment is affected by a variety of factors, including:

For example, we experienced a delay in patient enrollment for STRIDE 3, which evaluated EYSUVIS for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. There were a number of factors that may have impacted the delay, including increased competition for eligible patients from competitors that were developing product candidates to treat similar indications and the limited number of patients who fit the eligibility criteria for STRIDE 3. In addition, we are developing KPI-012 for PCED, which is a rare condition with an estimated incidence in the United States of 100,000 cases per year, and, as such, we may have difficulty identifying and enrolling a sufficient number of patients in our planned clinical trials of KPI-012 given the limited number of patients with PCED. Our inability to locate and enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials could result in significant delays, could require us to

Table of Contents

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 would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

If serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development or commercialization of our products or product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our commercialization efforts for our products or development of such product candidates.

If EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate we develop are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects in clinical trials or following approval and/or commercialization, or if our products or product candidates have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development or marketing to narrower 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. The most common adverse effects to date in trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS have been eye pain, instillation site pain, blurred vision and photophobia, which is discomfort or pain due to exposure to light. There have been no serious adverse events related to the administration of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS reported in any of our clinical trials and serious adverse events reported to date following approval and commercialization have been very rare. Increases in intraocular pressure, or IOP, and cataract formation are additional adverse effects associated with the use of corticosteroids in general. We have no clinical safety data on or patient exposure to either EYSUVIS or INVELTYS for longer than 28 days. Our understanding of the relationship between our products and these adverse effects may change as we gather more information, and additional unexpected adverse effects may occur. In addition, while KPI-012 was generally well-tolerated in Combangio’s Phase 1b clinical trials, it was only administered in 12 subjects. Compounds that initially show promise in clinical or earlier stage testing for treating ophthalmic disease or other diseases may later be found to cause side effects that prevent further development and commercialization of the compound. In addition, adverse events which had initially been considered unrelated to the study treatment may later, even following approval and/or commercialization, be found to be caused by the study treatment. Moreover, incorrect or improper use of our products or our product candidates (including use of EYSUVIS or INVELTYS more frequently than is prescribed) by patients could cause increases in IOP and may result in additional unexpected side effects or adverse events. There can be no assurance that our products or our product candidates will be used correctly, and if used incorrectly, such misuse could hamper commercial adoption or market acceptance of our products or product candidates, if approved, at the rate we currently expect.

​

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. We may never realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition of Combangio and by investing our limited resources in the Acquisition and the development of KPI-012, we may be required to forego or delay other opportunities. In addition, our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may 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.

KPI-012 has only been evaluated in a clinical trial outside of the United States. We 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.

Combangio has in the past chosen, and we may in the future choose, to conduct one or more of our clinical trials outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and be performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population

Table of Contents

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. In 2020 and 2021, Combangio conducted Phase 1b clinical trials of KPI-012 for PCED in 12 patients in Mexico. KPI-012 has only been evaluated in clinical trials outside of the United States. Based on the results of the Phase 1b clinical trials conducted in Mexico, we plan to submit an IND application to the FDA for KPI-012 and, subject to regulatory clearance, commence a Phase 2/3 clinical trial of KPI-012 for PCED in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2022. However, if the FDA does not accept the data from Combangio’s Phase 1b clinical trials of KPI-012 or any trial that we conduct in the future outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and could delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and KPI-012 and plan to contract with third parties for preclinical, clinical and commercial supply of any other product candidates we develop. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our products and product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of commercial quantities of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any product candidates. We rely on Woodstock Sterile Solutions Inc. (formerly known as Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC), or Woodstock, to manufacture and supply to us a minimum amount of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS bottles. We also rely on Altasciences company, or Altasciences, for manufacturing bulk intermediates, and Chemo Iberica SA, or Chemo Iberica, to manufacture and supply to us a bulk supply of loteprednol etabonate, or LE. We expect to rely on third-party manufacturers to manufacture clinical supplies of KPI-012 and any other product candidates we develop and commercial supplies of all of our products if and when approved for marketing by applicable regulatory authorities, as well as for packaging, serialization, storage, distribution and other production logistics. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply for bulk drug substances.

Certain of our third-party manufacturers have in the past, and may in the future, experience performance issues that result in lower than expected yields. Our third party manufacturers may encounter shortages in the raw materials or active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, necessary to produce our product candidates in the quantities needed for our clinical trials, or our products or our product candidates, if approved, in sufficient quantities for commercialization or to meet an increase in demand, as a result of capacity constraints or delays or disruptions in the market for the raw materials or API, including shortages caused by the purchase of such raw materials or API by our competitors or others and shortages related to epidemics or pandemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The failure of us or our third party manufacturers to obtain the raw materials or API necessary to manufacture sufficient quantities of our products or product candidates, may have a material adverse effect on our business.

While we have long-term commercial supply agreements for EYSUVIS and INVELTYS with third-party manufacturers, if these suppliers do not perform as we expect, we may be required to replace one or more of them. These manufacturers, and suppliers to these manufacturers, may also be affected by natural disasters, such as floods or fire, epidemics or pandemics, such as COVID-19, or such manufacturers could face manufacturing issues, such as contamination or regulatory concerns following a regulatory inspection of such facility, requiring us to seek replacement suppliers. Although we believe that there are a number of potential long-term replacements to our suppliers, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacements, including as a result of additional required FDA approvals. Replacements may not be readily available on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, we do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities for KPI-012. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of both drug substance and finished drug product for KPI-012 for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture of KPI-012 if it receives marketing approval. We also rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for packaging, labeling, sterilization, storage, distribution and other production logistics. We have only limited supply agreements in place with respect to KPI-012, and these arrangements do not extend to commercial supply. We obtain supplies of drug substance and finished drug product for KPI-012 on a purchase order basis and do not have long term committed supply arrangements with respect to KPI-012. We may be unable to maintain our current arrangements for KPI-012 or conclude agreements for commercial supply of KPI-012 on acceptable terms or at all.

Table of Contents

We are subject to additional risks related to our reliance on third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of the drug substance and drug product of KPI-012, a biological product candidate. Manufacturing biologics is complex, especially in large quantities. Biologic products must be made consistently and in compliance with a clearly defined manufacturing process. KPI-012 is a bone-marrow derived mesenchymal stem cell secretome therapeutic composed of biologically active components, including protease inhibitors and growth factors, and is produced from a proprietary cell bank. The manufacturing process for KPI-012 is comprised of three stages: (1) cultivation of mesenchymal stem cells from a working cell bank and production of unprocessed conditioned media (cell-free secretome), (2) production of drug substance as a chemically defined solution and (3) formulation and filling of drug product. While the drug product for Combangio’s early research and Phase 1b clinical trials was cultivated using a planar culture model, we plan to implement a bioreactor cultivation model for our planned clinical trials and for commercial supply of KPI-012. We are continuing the process of scaling up our manufacturing processes and capabilities with our third-party manufacturers to support longer term clinical development. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. In addition, KPI-012 drug product is manufactured from a vial of a working cell bank, which in turn was produced from a vial of master cell bank. KPI-012 master cell bank and working cell bank is stored in two separate locations. It is possible that we could lose the cell bank in both locations and have our manufacturing severely impacted by the need to replace the cell bank.

The FDA maintains strict requirements governing the manufacturing process and our third-party manufacturers are subject to inspection and approval by the FDA before we can commence the manufacture and sale of any of our products or product candidates, and thereafter subject to FDA inspection from time to time. Failure by our third-party manufacturers to pass such inspections and otherwise satisfactorily complete the FDA approval regimen with respect to our products or product candidates may result in regulatory actions such as the issuance of FDA Form 483 notices of observations, warning letters or injunctions or the loss of operating licenses. Depending on the severity of any potential regulatory action, our clinical or commercial supply could be interrupted or limited, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. When a manufacturer seeks to modify or make even seemingly minor changes to the manufacturing process, the FDA may require the applicant to conduct a comparability study that evaluates the potential differences in the product resulting from the change in the manufacturing process. In connection with any application for approval to market product candidates in the United States, we may be required to conduct a comparability study if the product we intend to market is supplied by a manufacturer different from the one who supplied the product evaluated in our clinical studies. Delays in designing and completing this study to the satisfaction of the FDA could delay or preclude our development and commercialization plans and thereby limit our revenues and growth.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including reliance on the third-party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third-party, the possible misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how, and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third-party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us.

​

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, 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 harm our business and results of operations.

EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and any other product candidate that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to a limited number of suitable manufacturing facilities that operate under cGMP regulations. For example, we were previously required to change our third-party manufacturer when the manufacturer was purchased by a third-party and exited the contract manufacturing business. The process of changing manufacturers can cause substantial time delays, and if we are required to change our manufacturer again in the future, it may delay our planned clinical trials or development timeline.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate we develop may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

Table of Contents

Our commitment to purchase from Woodstock a minimum amount of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS for commercial use may result in us paying for product in excess of our needs if we are not able to successfully commercialize our products and/or successfully estimate our supply needs.

​

Under our long-term supply agreement with Woodstock, we have agreed to purchase an annual combined minimum amount of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS for commercial use through the expiration of the initial term of the agreement in 2030. We cannot be certain that at any given point our future supply needs will meet or exceed such minimum purchase commitments. If demand for our products falls short of such minimum purchase requirements, our business, results of operation and financial condition may be adversely affected.

​

The manufacture of biologics is complex and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of product candidates for clinical trials or products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or prevented.

Manufacturing biologics, especially in large quantities, is often complex and may require the use of innovative technologies to handle living cells. Each lot of an approved biologic must undergo thorough testing for identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. Manufacturing biologics requires facilities specifically designed for and validated for this purpose, and sophisticated quality assurance and quality control procedures are necessary. Slight deviations anywhere in the manufacturing process, including filling, labeling, packaging, storage and shipping and quality control and testing, may result in lot failures, product recalls or spoilage. When changes are made to the manufacturing process, we may be required to provide preclinical and clinical data showing the comparable identity, strength, quality, purity or potency of the products before and after such changes. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at the facilities of our manufacturers, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and adversely harm our business.

In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with good manufacturing practices, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for KPI-012 or any future product candidates, there is no assurance that our manufacturers will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential commercial launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

​

We may enter into collaborations with third parties for the development or commercialization of our products and product candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these products and product candidates.

We expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties to develop and commercialize EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 or any other product candidate we develop and for which we seek or 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 to enhance our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities in the United States or if we determine that such third-party arrangements are otherwise beneficial. We also may seek third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of our product candidates. For example, we may consider potential collaborative partnership opportunities prior to initiating IND-enabling studies on KPI-287 or any other product candidates we develop, including our SEGRMs. 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. We are not currently party to any such arrangement. However, if we do enter into any such arrangements with any third parties in the future, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our products and product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Table of Contents

Collaborations that we enter into may pose a number of risks, including the following:

Collaboration agreements may not lead to 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

Table of Contents

we expect under these agreements, our development of our product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described herein also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if a collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, it might de-emphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product or product candidate licensed to it by us. 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.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

We rely on third parties, such as clinical research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, in conducting our clinical trials and expect to continue to rely on such parties to conduct clinical trials of any product candidate that we develop. We or these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, that could delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for clinical 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 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. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, 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. Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors.

We also rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

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

For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for the development of our product candidates and the commercialization of our products or the potential commercialization 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 product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, 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 or product candidate. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. 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.

Table of Contents

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay the commercialization of a product or a product candidate or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may 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.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology, products and product candidates, including those acquired in connection with our recent acquisition of Combangio. We have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing in the United States and in certain foreign jurisdictions patent applications related to our novel technologies, products and product candidates.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not have filed, maintained, or prosecuted and may not be able to file, maintain and prosecute all necessary or desirable patents or patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

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 are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or in other foreign countries which protect our technology, products or product candidates, 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, and the standards applied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, unlike patent law in the United States, European patent law precludes the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body and imposes substantial restrictions on the scope of claims it will grant if broader than specifically disclosed embodiments. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or 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 we may not know the full scope of all issued and pending patent applications. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology, products or product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies, products and product candidates. In particular, during prosecution of any patent application, the issuance of any patents based on the application may depend upon our ability to generate additional preclinical or clinical data that support the patentability of our proposed claims. We may not be able to generate sufficient additional data on a timely basis, or at all. 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.

Even if our owned and licensed patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection for our proprietary technology, products and product candidates, prevent competitors from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be

Table of Contents

able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies, products or product candidates in a non-infringing manner. In particular, a competitor may develop an approach to deliver drugs through the mucus layer to the underlying target tissue that uses a different approach than our AMPPLIFY technology, and therefore may not infringe on our patent rights.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, ownership, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our owned and licensed 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, products or product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology, products and product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we are not able to obtain patent term extension 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 products or product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

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 extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Also, the regulatory review period of an FDA-approved product may not serve as a basis for a patent term extension if the active ingredient of such product was subject to regulatory review and approval in an earlier product approved by the FDA. We do not expect the U.S. patents covering EYSUVIS and INVELTYS to be eligible for patent term extension due to this limitation. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. Nevertheless, we may not be able to seek or be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, 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.

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.

It is possible that we will not obtain patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act for a U.S. patent covering products or one of our product candidates even where that patent is eligible for patent term extension, or if we obtain such an extension, it may be for a shorter period than we had sought. Further, for our licensed patents, we may not have the right to control prosecution, including filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a petition for patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Thus, if one of our licensed patents is eligible for patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, we may not be able to control whether a petition to obtain a patent term extension is filed, or obtained, from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, with respect to the patent, a manufacturer of

Table of Contents

generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any Abbreviated New Drug Application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate.

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

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our owned and licensed patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property. As a result, to counter infringement, misappropriation or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement or misappropriation claims or other intellectual property related proceedings, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents or that our asserted patents are invalid. In addition, in a patent infringement or other intellectual property related proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly, and could put any of our patent applications at risk of not yielding an issued patent. 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 or trade secrets could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or become involved in other contested proceedings such as opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review, or interference proceedings in the United States or elsewhere, 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, products or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

In the United States, the FDA does not prohibit clinicians 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.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating 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 EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. There is a considerable amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. We may become party to, or threatened with, infringement litigation claims regarding our products, product candidates 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 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 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 can. The risks of being involved in such litigation and proceedings may increase as our product candidates commence 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

Table of Contents

rights potentially relating to our products or product candidates and their uses. Thus, we do not know with certainty that EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any of our product candidates or our development and commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe or otherwise violate any third-party’s intellectual property.

If we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third-party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third-party to continue developing, manufacturing, marketing and selling our products, product candidates and technology. 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 and could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology, products or product candidates. 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, which could materially harm our business. In addition, we may be forced to redesign our product candidates, seek new regulatory approvals 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.

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

Periodic maintenance, renewal and annuity fees on any issued patent must be paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and foreign patent agencies in several stages or annually over the lifetime of our owned and licensed patents and patent applications. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensing partners to pay these fees to, or comply with the procedural and documentary rules of, the relevant patent agency. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, it would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Table of Contents

EYSUVIS, INVELTYS, KPI-012 and certain aspects of our AMPPLIFY technology are protected by patents exclusively licensed from other companies or institutions. If these third parties terminate their agreements with us or fail to maintain or enforce the underlying patents, or we otherwise lose our rights to these patents, our competitive position and our market share in the markets for any of our approved products will be harmed.

A substantial portion of our patent portfolio is in-licensed. As such, we are a party to license agreements and certain aspects of our business depend on patents and/or patent applications owned by other companies or institutions. In particular, we hold exclusive licenses for patent families relating to EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and our product candidates and some aspects of our AMPPLIFY technology. While we control patent prosecution of the licensed patent families relating to EYSUVIS and INVELTYS, for the remainder of the patent families subject to our exclusive license agreement with The Johns Hopkins University, or JHU, or the JHU License Agreement, that relate to our AMPPLIFY technology, JHU retains control of patent prosecution. In addition, we rely on a license from Stanford University for certain patent rights related to KPI-012. The license agreement between Combangio and Stanford University, or Stanford University License Agreement, imposes specified diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us and requires that we meet development timelines, or to exercise diligent or commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the license. Our rights with respect to in-licensed patents and patent applications may be lost if the applicable license agreement expires or is terminated or if we fail to satisfy the obligations under the JHU License Agreement and Stanford University License Agreement. We are likely to enter into additional license agreements to in-license patents and patent applications as part of the development of our business in the future, under which we may not retain control of the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of such patents. If we are unable to maintain these patent rights for any reason, our ability to develop and commercialize our products or product candidates could be materially harmed.

Our licensors may not successfully prosecute certain patent applications, the prosecution of which they control, under which we are licensed and on which our business depends. Even if patents issue from these applications, our licensors may fail to maintain these patents, may decide not to pursue litigation against third-party infringers, may fail to prove infringement, or may fail to defend against counterclaims of patent invalidity or unenforceability.

Risks with respect to parties from whom we have obtained intellectual property rights may also arise out of circumstances beyond our control. In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our intellectual property agreements and might therefore terminate the intellectual property agreements, thereby removing our ability to market products covered by these intellectual property agreements. If our intellectual property agreements are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended market exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, if our intellectual property agreements are terminated, our former licensors and/or assignors may be able to prevent us from utilizing the technology covered by the licensed or assigned patents and patent applications. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive business position and our financial condition, results of operations and our business prospects.

Some intellectual property which we own or have licensed may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for United States industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, subject us to expenditure of resources with respect to reporting requirements, and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Some of the intellectual property rights we own or have licensed have been generated through the use of United States government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. For example, certain aspects of KPI-012, our AMPPLIFY technology as well as certain aspects of our patents that use LE as an active ingredient were developed using United States government funds. As a result, the United States government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future products and product candidates based on our AMPPLIFY technology or that use LE as an active ingredient pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. These United States government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the United States government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third-party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is

Table of Contents

necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The United States government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. In addition, the United States government may acquire title to these inventions in any country in which a patent application is not filed within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the United States government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for United States manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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 JHU License Agreement, under which we license certain of our patent rights and a significant portion of the technology for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and certain of our product candidates imposes royalty and other financial obligations on us and other substantial performance obligations. We are subject to similar obligations under the Stanford University License Agreement, pursuant to which we license certain patent rights related to KPI-012. 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 develop, manufacture or market any product or product candidate that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under the agreements. Such an occurrence could diminish the value of our products or product candidates. 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.

In addition, it is possible that JHU may conclude that we have materially breached the JHU License Agreement and might therefore terminate the agreement, thereby removing our ability to market products covered by our license agreement with JHU. If the JHU License Agreement is terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended market exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, if our JHU License Agreement is terminated, JHU and/or its assignors may be able to prevent us from utilizing the technology covered by the licensed or assigned patents and patent applications. If we breach the agreement (including by failing to meet our payment obligations) and do not adequately cure such breach, the rights in the technology licensed to us under the JHU license agreement will revert to JHU at no cost to JHU. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive business position, our financial condition, our results of operations and our business prospects. Similar risks apply to the Stanford University License Agreement, pursuant to which we license intellectual property rights related to KPI-012.

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products or product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Table of Contents

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

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on our products and product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection or licenses, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

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 and our licensors’ employees and contractors were previously employed at other biotechnology, medical device or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees and contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals 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. Furthermore, we are unable to control whether our licensors have obtained similar assignment agreements from their own employees and contractors. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we or our licensors may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

If we or our licensors fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive business position and prospects. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third-party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third-party to commercialize our technology or products, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Table of Contents

Intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property 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 and may also have an advantage in such proceedings due to their more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have an adverse effect on 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, our 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. Detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of a trade secret and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. 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.

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

If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates, and our ability to generate significant revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their 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 agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate.

Other than EYSUVIS and INVELTYS, we have not received approval to market any product candidate from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval of any other products with the market potential sufficient to enable us to achieve profitability. We have only limited experience in submitting and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and have relied on, and expect to continue to rely on, third-party consultants and vendors to assist us in this process. 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 efficacy. 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 or other regulatory authorities may determine that any product candidate that we develop is not effective, is only moderately effective, is not safe or has undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

Table of Contents

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. 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. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other 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.

In addition, disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may prolong the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new drugs can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years. Over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions at the FDA and has prolonged the time necessary for certain new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved. The FDA has been working to resume routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections on a prioritized basis, but certain FDA activities remain constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic. There can be no assurance that the FDA timely reviews applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of any product candidate that we develop, the commercial prospects for such product candidate may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

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

In order to market and sell EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or our product candidates in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we or our potential 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. Our Phase 3 clinical trials of EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any product candidate may not be sufficient to support an application for marketing approval outside the United States.

The time required to obtain approval outside of the United States 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 potential 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 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, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

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. We, and any potential collaborators we may have in the future, must

Table of Contents

therefore comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or for any of our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to drug products and medical devices 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 are limited to promoting EYSUVIS and INVELTYS in accordance with their approved labels and the accompanying label may limit the approved use of any other product for which we obtain marketing approval, which could limit sales of such product.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product, including the adoption and implementation of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling and regulatory requirements. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not restrict the marketing of our products only to their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription drugs may lead to investigations and/or enforcement actions by the FDA, Department of Justice and state Attorneys General alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may have various consequences, including:

Non-compliance with European Union requirements or laws of other countries regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance can also result in significant financial penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with the European Union’s or other countries’ requirements regarding the protection of personal information can lead to significant penalties and sanctions. Further, the marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are

Table of Contents

strictly regulated in the European Union notably under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended, and are also subject to EU Member State laws. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is prohibited across the European Union.

In addition, 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 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, our contract manufacturers, any contract manufacturers we may engage in the future, our 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 clinicians, 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.

Accordingly, we continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control for our approved products. We may be subject to substantial penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products.

We may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for one or more of our product candidates, and even if we do, that exclusivity may not prevent the FDA or the EMA from approving other competing products. Additionally, if another company with a competing product candidate were to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for its competing product candidate before we do, we may be barred from marketing our product candidate for the same indication as the competing product candidate during the exclusivity period.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in the European Union. KPI-012 has received orphan drug designation from the FDA for the treatment of PCED.

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. If a competing product candidate with an orphan designation for PCED were to obtain regulatory approval before we are able to obtain approval of KPI-012 for PCED, we could be barred from marketing KPI-012 for PCED in the United States during the seven-year orphan exclusivity period, which would have a severe adverse effect on our business.

In order for the FDA to grant orphan drug exclusivity to one of our products, the FDA must find that the product is indicated for the treatment of a condition or disease with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. The FDA may conclude that the condition or disease for which orphan drug exclusivity is sought does not meet this standard. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition.

In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition.

The FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA, requires that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. FDARA reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. The FDA

Table of Contents

may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

We may seek certain designations for our product candidates, including Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track and Priority Review designations in the United States, and PRIME Designation in the European Union, but we might not receive such designations, and even if we do, such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek certain designations for one or more of our product candidates that could expedite review and approval by the FDA. A Breakthrough Therapy product is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For products that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens.

The FDA may also designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track review products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track review product may be effective.

We may also seek a priority review designation for one or more of our product candidates. If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers major advances in treatment or provides a treatment where no adequate therapy exists, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal is for the FDA to review a new drug application in six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months.

These designations are within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for these designations, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Further, even if we receive a designation, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies for these designations, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

In the European Union, we may seek PRIME designation for some of our product candidates in the future. The PRIME program focuses on product candidates that target conditions for which there exists no satisfactory method of treatment in the European Union, or even if such a method exists, the product candidate may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. To be accepted for PRIME designation, a product candidate must meet the eligibility criteria in respect of its major public health interest and therapeutic innovation based on information that is capable of substantiating the claims. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a rapporteur of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use to provide continued support and help to build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review, meaning reduction in the review time for an opinion on approvability to be issued earlier in the application process. PRIME designation enables an applicant to request parallel EMA scientific advice and health technology assessment advice to facilitate timely market access. Even if we receive

Table of Contents

PRIME designation for any of our product candidates, the designation may not result in a materially faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional EMA procedures. Further, obtaining PRIME designation does not assure or increase the likelihood of EMA’s grant of a marketing authorization.

If approved, our products regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biologic products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biologic product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a BLA for the competing 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 the other company’s product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

To date, we have not had a product candidate approved as a biologic product. We believe that any of our product candidates that may be approved as a biologic product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our products to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biologic products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. If competitors are able to obtain regulatory approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

Our relationships with customers and third-party payors may be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, transparency, health information privacy and security, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, clinicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription and use of EYSUVIS and INVELTYS, and will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription and use of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute EYSUVIS and INVELTYS and any products for which we obtain marketing approval. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include:

Table of Contents

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, integrity obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, integrity obligations, exclusion from funded healthcare programs, or curtailment or restructuring of our operations could adversely affect our financial results. Our corporate compliance program is designed to ensure that we will develop, market and sell our products and 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 arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. 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, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the clinicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we do or expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, it may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government funded healthcare programs.

Existing and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain reimbursement for our products and product candidates.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could affect our ability to profitably sell or commercialize EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and have been significantly affected by legislative initiatives. Current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in

Table of Contents

more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any FDA approved product.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the Medicare Modernization Act, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for clinician administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. While the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the Medicare Modernization Act may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, in August 2021, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year that started in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2031. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which was enacted on March 27, 2020, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030. Pursuant to subsequent legislation, the reductions were suspended through the end of March 2022 and reduced to 1% from April 2022 through June 2022. In addition, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for EYSUVIS, INVELTYS and for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any product candidate is prescribed or used.

We expect that additional healthcare reforms 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 EYSUVIS, INVELTYS or any other 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.

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 and litigation and legislation over the ACA is likely to continue with unpredictable and uncertain results. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the 2017 Tax Act, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which required most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, but those were rescinded by the Biden Administration. President Biden issued an 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.

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals has also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States, and members of Congress and the Biden Administration have stated that they will address such costs through new legislative and administrative measures. To date, 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 drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, on July 9, 2021,

Table of Contents

President Biden signed an executive order, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The executive order directs the Department of Health and Human Services, or 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: (1) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (2) 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 (3) 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.

The pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is also subject to governmental control outside the United States. 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 may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates 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 ability to generate revenues and become profitable could be impaired.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. 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.

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 agencies, 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 their calculation, 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.

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

Table of Contents

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 the 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 FSS 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 FCA 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.

If we or any third-party manufacturers we engage fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur significant costs.

We and any third-party manufacturers we engage or may engage are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Although we maintain general liability insurance as well as workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Further, with respect to the operations of any future third-party contract manufacturers, it is possible that if they fail to operate in compliance with applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations or properly dispose of wastes associated with our products, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, suffer reputational harm or experience a disruption in the manufacture and supply of our product candidates or products.

We are subject to anti-corruption laws, as well as export control laws, customs laws, sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations. If we fail to comply with these laws, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties, other remedial measures and legal expenses, be precluded from developing manufacturing and selling certain products outside the United States or be required to develop and implement costly compliance programs, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, or Bribery Act, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business and may do business in the future. The FCPA, Bribery Act and these other laws generally prohibit us, our officers, and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed or making other prohibited payments to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Compliance with the FCPA, in particular, is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In